http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: KAMAKSHA RAI & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       01/10/1999

BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde, G.B.Pattaniak

JUDGMENT:

SANTOSH HEGDE, J.

     These  two  appeals  arise out of the  judgment  dated 22.12.1993  delivered  by  the High Court of  Judicature  at Allahabad  in Criminal Appeal No.2803/78.  The appeal before the  High  Court  of  Allahabad, in  turn,  arose  from  the judgment  of the first Additional Sessions Judge,  Ghazipur, dated 3.10.1978 in Sessions Trial No.102/76.

     In regard to an incident which took place in the early morning   of  27.4.1975  in   village  Sherpur  Kalan  under Bhanwarkol  Police Station, district Ghazipur, as many as 65 persons were tried for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149, Sections 147, 364 read with Sec.  436 read  with 149, Sec.  429 read with 149, Sec.  323 read with 149,  Sec.   325 read with 149.  Out of the said 64  accused persons,  the  trial court firstly convicted  and  sentenced A-1,  A-  9,  A-26, A-33 and A-34 to imprisonment  for  life under  Section  302 read with Section 149 for the murder  of Radhey  Shyam and Banarsi, and also convicted the  abovesaid accused persons under various other offences, particulars of which  may not be relevant at this stage.  Nextly, the trial court  convicted and sentenced the above accused along  with A-2,  A-3, A-4 to A-8, A-10 to A-25, A-27 to A-32, A-35  and A-36  to under rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 10 years under Section  436  IPC  read  with Section  149  IPC  for  having committed   arson  and  also   sentenced  them  to   undergo imprisonment  for  various  other   lesser  offences.    The sentences so awarded were directed to run concurrently.

     These  36  accused  preferred   the  criminal   appeal referred  to  above  to  the High  Court  of  Judicature  at Allahabad  and  the  High Court as per  its  judgment  dated 22.12.1993  partly allowed the said appeal and held that the prosecution has not established the charge under Section 302 read  with  149  and Section 364 read with 149  against  the accused who were convicted under the said Sections acquitted those  appellants  of  the said charges  but  convicted  all appellant  Nos.1-36  for offences under Sections  147,  323, 325,  429  and 436 all read with Section 149 IPC,  and  also confirmed  the  sentences awarded by the trial  court  under Sections 147, 323 read with Section 149 and Section 325 read

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

with  149  IPC.   The sentences awarded by the  trial  court under  Section  429 read with Section 149 IPC in  regard  to these  appellants  were  reduced to 3 years’ R.I.   and  the sentence  awarded by the trial court under Section 436  read with  Section 149 IPC to R.I.  for 5 years.  The High  Court also directed the sentences to run concurrently.

     Being aggrieved by the judgment and conviction awarded against  them,  30 out of the 36 appellants  have  preferred Crl.A.   No.323/94 before this Court and being aggrieved  by the  acquittal  of  the appellants of their  charge  against Section  302  and connected offences referable to the  first part  of the incident, the State has preferred Crl.   Appeal No.114/96.  It transpires that either during the pendency of the  appeal before the High Court or during the pendency  of these  appeals,  the following accused have since  died  and their respective appeals have abated in regard to :  Shambhu Rai,  Baliram  Rai, Uma Rai, Janardan Rai,  Chandrahas  Rai, Harihar  Rai,  Abhai  Rai, Chandradeo Rai and  Ayodhya  Rai. Therefore,  in effect, both the appeals are for and  against 25 other accused persons.

     The  prosecution  case, stated briefly, is that  there was  continuing feud between the members of the upper  caste and  the Harijans of Sherpur Kalan village within the Police Station Bhanwarkol in the district of Ghazipur consequent to which  the  Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC)  was  posted near  about  the  village.   Inspite of  the  said  security measures  on 27.4.1975 at about the time of sunrise, accused 1  to  34  forming an unlawful assembly  armed  with  deadly weapons  like  spears,  Gandasas,  and Lathis  came  to  the Harijan  Basti  and forcibly took away Radhey Shyam, son  of Muneshwar  (PW-1)  and Banarsi who belonged to  the  Harijan community to the Khalihan of Ram Chander Rai where beneath a peepal  tree the bodies of two persons named Ram Chander Rai and  Mangla Rai belonging to the upper caste were lying  and belaboured  the  said Radhey Shyam and  Banarsi  mercilessly consequent  to which the said two persons died on the  spot. The  attack  on  Radhey Shyam and Banarsi was  witnessed  by prosecution  witnesses  PWs.  1, 2, 3 and  20.   Thereafter, these  34  persons were joined by accused Nos.35 to  65  who together  started proceeding towards the Harijan Basti.   On the  way, according to the prosecution, this group of  upper caste  members was further joined by another group of nearly 500-700  people and they together indulged in assaulting the members of the Harijan Basti, looting and setting ablaze the huts  belonging  to  the members of the  Harijan  community. Consequently,  a  large number of hutments and  cattle  were destroyed  in the fire and nearly 17 members of the  Harijan Basti  were  injured.  The prosecution witnesses, as  stated above, implicated accused Nos.1-34 before the trial court of having  abducted Radhey Shyam and Banarsi and having  caused various  types  of injuries on them and  ultimately  causing death  of  these  2 persons.  They have  implicated  accused Nos.1-65  of  having  indulged in arson,  causing  hurt  and destroying  property in the Harijan Basti along with another 500-700  members of the upper caste who were not brought  to trial.

     The prosecution case in regard to the murder of Radhey Shyam  and  Banarsi (hereinafter referred to as  ‘the  first incident)   and   subsequent  attack    on   Harijan   Basti (hereinafter  referred to as ‘the second incident’) was  due to  a suspicion entertained by the accused in regard to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

death  of Ram Chander Rai and Mangla Rai which, according to the  prosecution,  had taken place sometime in the  midnight between  26th  and 27th April, 1975 at the Khalihan  of  Ram Chander which came to be known to the family of the said Ram Chander Rai and Mangla Rai in the early morning of 27.4.1975 and  suspecting that the said murders must have been  caused by deceased Radhey Shyam and Banarsi.  Accused 1-34 took the law into their own hands and committed the murders of Radhey Shyam  and  Banarsi  and  in the company  of  A-35  to  A-64 committed  the  offences alleged against them in the  second incident.

     The  FIR  in regard to the death of Radhey  Shyam  and Banarsi and subsequent attack on the Harijan Basti was given by  Muneshwar  PW-1 by an oral complaint made to Ram  Nagina Prasad Singh PW-22 who was one of the investigating officers in  the  case.  In the said FIR, PW-1 has named A-1 to  A-36 along  with  400-600 unnamed persons as members of  the  mob which  committed the murder of Radhey Shyam and Banarsi  and the   subsequent   attack   on    Harijan   Basti.     After investigation,  the prosecution, as stated above,  challaned A-1 to A-34 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 364, 149, 302 and 149 and further challaned accused Nos.1-65 for  offences under Sections 147, 323, 436, 429, 323 and 325 read  with 149 IPC with reference to the second part of  the incident,  namely,  arson and attack on the  Harijan  Basti. During  the  trial,  the prosecution relied  on  the  direct evidence  of  PWs.1,  2, 3 and 20 with regard to  the  first incident  and PWs.1 to 21 in regard to the second  incident. During  the  trial,  one  of the accused  by  name  Baikunth Upadhyaya  died  hence the trial proceeded  against  accused Nos.1-64 only.

     The   trial  court  accepted   the  evidence  of   the prosecution  with reference to the first incident as against A-1,  A-9,  A-26, A-33, A-34 and convicted them  of  offence under  Section 302 read with 149 along with lesser  offences for  their  role in the murders of Radhey Shyam and  Banarsi and  accepted the case of the prosecution as against A-1  to A-34 in regard to their role with reference to the attack on the  Harijan  Basti  and sentenced  them  accordingly  while acquitting the other accused persons.

     In  appeal,  the High Court on reappreciation  of  the evidence  did  not  accept the case of  the  prosecution  in regard  to  the murders of Radhey Shyam and Banarsi  as  put forth  by  the  prosecution and relying  upon  the  material available  on record, came to the conclusion that the  death of  Ram  Chander Rai, Mangla Rai, Radhey Shyam  and  Banarsi occurred  at or about the same time as a sequel to attack on each  other by the two groups.  According to the High Court, the  attack  on  Ram Chander Rai and Mangla Rai came  to  be known to the members of the upper caste on hearing the cries of one Jagdish Rai who was injured in the said attack and in the  consequent attack and counter attack, Ram Chander  Rai, Mangla  Rai,  Radhey  Shyam  and Banarsi  succumbed  to  the injuries  suffered  by  them.   Therefore,  the  High  Court considered  it  not safe to rely upon the  prosecution  case with  reference to the first incident and acquitted  accused A-1,  A-9,  A-26, A-33 and A-34 of the charge of murder  for which the trial court had awarded life imprisonment to these accused  persons  and  acquitted them  of  other  incidental charges  found against these accused by the trial court, but accepted the case of the prosecution in regard to the second incident  relying  upon  the evidence  of  the  prosecution,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

confirmed  the sentence awarded by the trial court on A-1 to A-36 on account of the second incident.

     In  Crl.   Appeal  No.323/94, Mr.  UR  Lalit,  learned senior  counsel appearing for the appellants, has vehemently contended  that  the  trial court as well as  the  appellate court  have  seriously  erred in relying upon  the  partisan evidence  produced  by the prosecution and since  there  are serious  omissions  and  contradictions  in  regard  to  the presence and participation of the various accused persons in the  alleged incident and in view of the finding of the High Court  that  the genesis of the attack as put forth  by  the prosecution  being doubtful, it is not safe to rely upon the prosecution  evidence  to base a conviction.   He  contended that  the investigating agency was unable to implicate  with certainty  any  of  the assailants either  in  the  incident leading  to the death of Radhey Shyam and Banarsi or in  the subsequent  attack on Harijan Basti.  Basing his argument on the  evidence  of PW-22 he pointed out that at the  relevant time  the Government order mandated the investigating agency that  only those cases in which accused were "SAVARNAZ"  and not  "HARIJANS" were to be investigated.  The Police without investigating  the murders of Ram Chander Rai and Mangla Rai proceeded  against and challaned large number of members  of the  upper  caste by falsely implicating them in this  case. At  any  rate,  he  contended that since  in  the  incidents alleged,  there  was involvement of large number  of  people convicted  with the aid of Section 149 IPC this Court should be  extra cautious in scrutinising the prosecution evidence. He  placed  reliance on the decisions of this Court  in  the cases  of Masalti etc.  v.  The State of U.P.  (AIR 1965  SC 202)  and Binay Kumar Singh etc.  v.  State of Bihar (1997 1 SCC  283)  to support his contention that in cases  where  a large number of people are accused of committing a crime and are  said to be charged with the aid of Section 149 IPC, the court  should  be  extremely  careful  in  scrutinising  the evidence  and  prudence demands in such cases that at  least the  prosecution  case  should be sustained only  if  it  is supported  by  two,  three  or   more  witnesses  who   give consistent  account  of  the  incident.   According  to  Mr. Lalit, in the instant case if the prosecution evidence is to be  scrutinised  on the basis of the said yardstick,  hardly any  of  the appellants could be convicted of  the  offences they  are  now  sentenced to.  On behalf of  the  State,  in support  of its appeal, it is contended by Mr.  A.A.   Khan, learned  counsel,  that  the High Court seriously  erred  in acquitting  the five accused who were convicted by the trial court  of the charge of murder of Radhey Shyam and  Banarsi. He  contended  that  the  reasoning of  the  High  Court  in allowing  the  appeal of these appellants, to the extent  it has  done,  is  contrary to the evidence on record  and  the conclusion of the High Court in regard to the genesis of the incident  is  not based on any material, hence, the same  is liable to be set aside.  He, however, strongly supported the finding of both the courts below in regard to the conviction of  the  accused with reference to the second incident.   He also  challenged the decision of the High Court reducing the sentence  awarded to those convicted persons under  Sections 429/149 and 436/149 IPC as being without any basis.  We will first  take up the appeal preferred by the convicted accused i.e.   Criminal  Appeal  No.323/94  for  consideration.   As stated  above, in this appeal the surviving appellants  have challenged  their conviction as upheld by the High Court for offences  punishable  under Sections 147, 323, 325, 429  and 436  all read with Section 149 IPC.  It is to be noted  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

the  High  Court while confirming the above  conviction  and sentence,  reduced  the sentence awarded under  Section  429 read  with Section 149 IPC to 3 years’ RI and under  Section 436  read  with  Section  149  IPC  to  5  years’  RI  while maintaining  the  sentence  awarded by the  trial  court  in regard to the other mentioned offences.

     The  incident  in  regard  to  which  the  High  Court confirmed  the conviction on the appellants pertains to  the attack  on the Harijan Basti which we have earlier termed as the  second  incident in which as many as 17 members of  the Harijan  community  sustained injuries of varied nature  and nearly as many heads of cattle were gutted in fire so also a large  number  of  huts  belonging to the  members  of  this community were set on fire.  This incident, according to the prosecution,  took  place immediately after the  assault  on deceased  Radhey  Shyam  and  Banarsi for  which  crime  the prosecution  has  held  the  original accused  A-1  to  A-34 responsible.   It  is  the prosecution case that  after  the first  incident at the behest of A-35, who is the Pradhan of the  village,  A-36 to A-64 joined hands with  the  original group  comprising  A-1  to A-34 and all  of  them  proceeded towards  the Harijan Basti.  On the way, they were joined by another  500-  600 people;  all belonging to the members  of the  upper  caste  and together they committed  the  offence which  forms  part of the second incident.  The  prosecution relies  upon  the evidence of PWs.1 to 21 to  establish  its case  against the accused persons who were brought to  trial with  reference  to  the  charges referable  to  the  second incident.  In regard to this incident, there were 65 persons originally  named  and  arrayed as accused  persons  out  of which,  as stated above, Baikunth Upadhyaya died.  The trial court  on consideration of the prosecution case,  considered it  unsafe  to accept the evidence against A-37 to A-64  and accordingly  acquitted them of the charges levelled  against them.   To  this  extent  the   prosecution  has  failed  to establish  its  case in regard to the second  incident  even before  the  trial court.  From the narration of the  second incident  by the prosecution, it is seen that a large number of people exceeding 500 in number were alleged to have taken part in this incident.  Nearly 22 prosecution witnesses have supported  this  part of the prosecution case in  which  the courts  below believed the case of the prosecution in regard to  only 36 of them, who have been convicted for their  part in  the  second  incident.  Taking  into  consideration  the nature  of  attack and the possibility or otherwise  of  the identification  of these accused persons by the  prosecution witnesses  and  bearing in mind the principles laid down  by this  Court  in  the above-cited judgments, we  are  of  the opinion  that  it  is not safe to rely on  the  evidence  of witnesses  who speak generally and in an omnibus way without specific  reference  to the identity of the individuals  and their  specific  overt acts in regard to the  incident  that took  place  in  the Harijan Basti.  In view  of  the  large number   of   accused  implicated  in  this   incident   and simultaneous  nature of attack as stated by the  prosecution witnesses, we think as a rule of prudence it is necessary to fix  a  minimum  number of witnesses needed  to  accept  the prosecution  case  to base a conviction.  We have  carefully perused the evidence on record and heard the counsel on this point  and  having  bestowed  our thoughts, we  are  of  the opinion  PWs.   1 to 3 in this case have implicated all  the appellants  uniformly  of the offence charged against  them. While  their  presence  at the place of incident  cannot  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

doubted,  we find it difficult to accept the fact that these 3  witnesses  could  have  noticed and  identified  all  the accused  numbering 64 out of nearly 500 participants in  the second  incident.   The trial court has not  accepted  their evidence  in regard to the involvement of A-37 to A-64;  may be on the limited ground that their names were not mentioned in  the F.I.R.  but the fact remains that these 3  witnesses have  improved their case by implicating that many  innocent people  in  their oral evidence.  Therefore, we are  of  the considered  opinion  that conviction cannot be based on  the evidence  of  PWs.1 to 3 only in this case, and we  have  to look  for  corroboration  of the evidence of PWs.   1  to  3 (which  we treat as anchor evidence) from witnesses who have given  evidence  to the actual fact of the presence  of  the named appellants and of the overt act of those appellants in the  second  incident.   For  this purpose, we  are  of  the opinion    that   if   evidence   of    PWs.1   to   3    is supported/corroborated  by  one or more reliable  witnesses, then  a conviction can be safely based on that appellants in regard to the charge of which they stand convicted.

     For  the purpose of scrutinising the evidence  against each  of  the  accused with the aid of above  yardstick,  we requested  the counsel for the appellant to prepare a  chart giving the particulars of the witnesses who have spoken with reference  to the particular appellant, identifying him  and specifying the overt act of that appellant.  Learned counsel has  prepared such a chart and a copy of which was given  to the  learned  counsel  for the State who was given  time  to cross-  check  the  particulars given in the  chart.   After cross-checking  the  same  with reference  to  the  evidence available  on record, the learned counsel for the State  has agreed  that the particulars given in the chart are correct. In  view of the fact that there is considerable confusion in the  ranking  assigned to the appellants/accused persons  in the  trial court, High Court and in this Court, we  consider it necessary to refer to the appellants by their names while discussing  the  merits of their individual cases  in  these appeals.   The  evidence  of PWs.1 to 3 has  not  found  any corroboration in regard to the appellants - Basan Rai son of Sukha  Rao, Shri Rai son of Sheomuni Rai, Singhasan Rai  son of  Brahmdeo Rao, Uma Rai son of Badan Rai, Sita Rai son  of Ramadeo  Rai,  Gurudatt Rai son of Lodhi Rai, Lallu @  Lallu Rai son of Radhika Rai, Nand Kishore Rai son of Lakshmi Rai, Bindhyachal  Rai  son  of Nandan Rai, Munni Lal Rai  son  of Radhika  Rai,  Chhabinath  Rai son of Bipin Bihari  Rai  and Mahendra  Rai  son of Ram Naresh Rai.  On the basis  of  the reasoning  adopted  by  us   hereinabove  as  against  these appellants,  it  cannot  be said that  the  prosecution  has established  its  case  beyond reasonable doubt  as  against these  appellants.   With  reference  to Deena  Rai  son  of Brahmdeo Rai, apart from the evidence of PWs.  1-3, PW-5 has spoken  about  their  presence  at the time  of  the  second incident  and  he has stated that these three  persons  were responsible   to   set   his  house   on   fire.    In   the cross-examination  apart from establishing the fact that his evidence  was recorded 3 days after the incident which in  a case of this nature we find not very unnatural we are of the opinion  that  there  is  corroboration  in  regard  to  the evidence  of PWs.1-3 in regard to the participation of  this accused  person.   In  regard to Tarkeshwar Rai son  of  Ram Raksh  Rai in addition to the evidence of PWs.1-3, there  is the evidence of Pws.10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 which corroborates the  evidence  of  PWs.1-3,  hence,  we  do  not  find   any difficulty  in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

has  established  the charges levelled against this  accused with  reference to the second incident.  In regard to  Sivil Rai  son  of  Baijnath Rai apart from the  anchor  evidence, there  is  the  evidence  of PW-8.  He  has  stated  in  his evidence  that  Sivil  Rai was one of the  persons  who  was present  at the time of attack and had set his house ablaze. We  find in the cross-examination nothing material has  been elicited  to  disbelieve  the   evidence  of  this  witness. Therefore,  we find corroboration in the prosecution case in support  of the evidence of PWs.1-3 to find this person also guilty of his participation in the second incident.

     In  regard  to Kamaksha Rai son of Chengan  Rai  apart from  the anchor evidence, there is the evidence of  PWs.11, 15 and 16 corroborating the same.  Therefore, we do not find any difficulty in coming to the conclusion that this accused was  present and had taken part in the second incident.  The same  can  be said of Raja Ram Rai son of Chengan Rai  whose presence and participation is corroborated in support of the anchor  evidence by PWs.  10 and 16.  Tarkeshwar Rai son  of Suraj  Rai’s participation in the second incident is  spoken to  by the anchor witness whose evidence is supported by the evidence  of  PW-10.  She has in specific terms stated  that two  Tarkeshwar Rais’ i.e.  Tarkeshwar Rai son of Ram  Raksh Rai  and  Junior  Tarkeshwar Rai meaning  thereby  both  the Tarkeshwars  had set her house afire consequent to which she lost  her  house  and two domestic animals.  In  her  cross- examination,  we find that the defence has not been able  to establish any contradiction or doubt.  Therefore, we have no hesitation  in  accepting her evidence.  With  reference  to Harihar Rai son of Dubari Lal apart from the anchor evidence PW-6  has spoken in specific terms with reference to the act of this accused having set his house on fire.  Therefore, on finding  corroboration,  we find him guilty of his  presence and participation in the second incident.  In regard to Rama Rai  son of Kali Rai - the case against him is sought to  be corroborated  through the evidence of PW-6 whose evidence we have already accepted with reference to Harihar Rai and this corroborating   witness   has  also   named   this   accused specifically with particulars of the over act of burning his house.   Therefore,  his case stands on the same footing  as that  of  Harihar  Rai and we accept  the  prosecution  case against  this  accused  in  regard   to  his  presence   and participation   in  the  second   incident.   In  regard  to Mukteshwar  Upadhya son of Rama Upadhya, PW-5 apart from the anchor witnesses speaks about the presence of this acused at the  time  of  the second incident.  We  have  accepted  the evidence  of this witness with reference to Deena Rai above. On   the  same  basis  we   find  that  this  witness   PW-5 corroborates the evidence of the anchor witness in regard to this  appellant,  hence,  we  find him also  guilty  of  the presence  and  participation  in the  second  incident.   In regard  to  Sheomuni Rai son of Chengan Rai, PWs.  1 to  3’s evidence  is  supported by the evidence of PW-8.  Though  we have  accepted  the evidence of PW-8 with reference  to  the participation  of Sivil Rai son of Baijnath Rai, we find  it difficult to accept the evidence of this witness (PW-8) with reference  to  this  accused since there seems  to  be  some confusion  in  regard  to the name of this  accused  in  the evidence  of  this witness as there is no other  witness  to corroborate  the  evidence of the anchor  witnesses.   Apart from  this  witness, we consider it unsafe to rely upon  the evidence  of this witness.  Hence, this accused is  entitled to  the benefit of doubt.  Coming to the appeal of the State wherein  the  State has challenged the acquittal of those  5

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

persons  of the charges under Section 302 read with  Section 149,  Section 364 read with Section 149 and further reducing the  sentence of all the respondents for the offences  under Sections 429/149 and 436/149 IPC from 5 years to 3 years’ RI and  from  10 years to 5 years’’RI.  We have  heard  learned counsel  for  the State as well as for the respondents.   We find  the  reasoning  of the High Court  that  the  incident leading  to the murders of Radhey Shyam and Banarsi has  not been established by the prosecution, as alleged by it.  From the evidence on record the prosecution has failed to explain the  circumstances  in which Ram Chander Rai and Mangla  Rai came  to be murdered.  The motive attributed in the  present case  having  a direct bearing on the incident which led  to the  death  of Ram Chander Rai and Mangla Rai, it cannot  be said  that  the  genesis  of the attack  has  been  properly brought  forth  in the prosecution case.  The view taken  by the  High Court that both the sets of murder might have been the  result of a fight between two groups of persons in  the village  which the investigating agency has not been able to unearth   and   present   to  the    Court   in   its   true perspective/sequence,  cannot  be  said to be  perverse  and unreasonable so as to call for interference by this Court in these  appeals.  We are also of the opinion that taking into consideration  all facts and circumstances of the case,  the decision  of the High Court to alter the sentence awarded by the  trial  court  by reducing the same from 5  years  to  3 years’  RI  for offence under Section 429 read with  Section 149  and  from  10 years to 5 years’ RI  for  offence  under Section  436  read with Section 149 IPC respectively  cannot also  be said to be erroneous and unreasonable so as to call for  our interference.  In the said view of the matter,  the appeal of the State fails and is hereby dismissed.

     Criminal  Appeal  No.323/94  is allowed in  regard  to appellants  -  Basan Rai son of Sukha Rai, Shri Rai  son  of Sheomuni Rai, Singhasan Rai son of Brahmdeo Rai, Uma Rai son of  Badan Rai, Sita Rai son of Ramadeo Rai, Gurudatt Rai son of  Lodhi  Rai, Lallu @ Lallu Rai son of Radhika  Rai,  Nand Kishore  Rai  son  of Lakshmi Rai, Bindhyachal  Rai  son  of Nandan Rai, Munni Lal Rai son of Radhika Rai, Chhabinath Rai son  of Bipin Bihari Rai and Mahendra Rai son of Ram  Naresh Rai  and  Sheomuni Rai son of Chengan Rai is  allowed.   The conviction  and  sentence  imposed by the  trial  court,  as modified  by  the High Court is set aside.  If they  are  on bail, their bail-bonds shall stand cancelled.  The appeal of accused Deena Rai son of Brahmdeo Rai, Tarkeshwar Rai son of Ram Raksh, Kamaksha Rai son of Chengan Rai, Raja Ram Rai son of Chengan Rai, Tarkeshwar Rai son of Suraj Rai, Harihar Rai son  of Dubari Lal, Rama Rai son of Kali Rai, Raghunath  Rai son  of  Paramhans Rai, Uma Shankar Rai @ Bombay Rai son  of Sheomuni Rai, Kashi Rai son of Bhardul Rai and Sudarshan Rai son of Dubari Rai - is dismissed, upholding their conviction as  awarded by the trial court and confirmed and modified by the  High Court.  If they are on bail, they are directed  to serve out the remainder of their sentences.  For the reasons stated above, Criminal Appeal No.114/96 is also dismissed.