REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.686 OF 2002

State of U.P. .. Appellant

Versus

Ram Sajivan & Others      .. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. Unfortunately,  the  centuries  old  Indian  Caste  System  

still takes its toll from time to time.   This case unfolds the  

worst  kind  of  atrocities  committed  by  the  so  called  upper-

caste (Kshatriya or Thakur) against the so called lower-caste  

-Harijan  caste  in  a  civilized  country.   It  is  absolutely  

imperative  to  abolish  the  caste  system as  expeditiously  as  

possible  for  the  smooth  functioning  of  Rule  of  Law  and  

Democracy in our country.

   2. In  the  instant  case,  the  accused persons belonging  to  

Thakur  caste  literally  butchered  seven  totally  innocent  

persons belonging to the Harijan caste and to wipe out the  

entire  evidence  of  their  atrocities,  after  shooting  they  were  

thrown in the river Ganges where currents were very strong.  

Out of  seven, even the bodies  of  five  persons could not be  

recovered.

3. This  appeal  emanates  from  the  judgment  and  order  

dated 10.01.2001 delivered by the High Court of judicature at  

Allahabad in  Criminal  Appeal  No.  1715 of  1982.    By this  

impugned judgment, all the 18 accused who were convicted  

and sentenced to  life  imprisonment  by the  trial  court  have  

been subsequently acquitted by the High Court.

4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, in an  

elaborate,  exhaustive  and  well  considered  judgment,  

sentenced  the  18  accused  persons  under  section  302 read  

with section 149 IPC for committing the murder of  Jasodiya,  

Ganga, Tulsi, Deo Nath alias Madan, Din Dayal, Sukhlal and  

Shripal.   Accused persons were further sentenced to undergo  

seven  years  rigorous  imprisonment  on  each  counts  for  

2

committing  the  dacoities.    The  accused persons were  also  

sentenced  to  undergo  five  years  of  rigorous  imprisonment  

under  section  364  IPC  for  abduction  of  Kallu,  Jasodiya,  

Ganga, Tulsi, Deo Nath, Din Dayal, Sukhpal and Shripal.  All  

the  accused  persons  were  also  sentenced  to  undergo  four  

years  rigorous  imprisonment  under  section  201  IPC  for  

elimination of evidence of murder by throwing the dead bodies  

of  the  seven persons in  the  river  Ganga.  All  the  sentences  

awarded to the accused persons on all counts were directed to  

run concurrently.

5. In  appeal,  the  High  Court  acquitted  all  the  eighteen  

accused.   The  appellant,  State  of  U.P.  has  preferred  this  

appeal  against  the  impugned  judgment  of  the  High  Court  

acquitting all the accused persons.   

6. Brief  facts  necessary  to  dispose  of  this  appeal  are  

recapitulated as under:-

On the intervening night  of  9/10.9.1979 in the village  

Lohari,  Police  station  Hussainganj,  U.P.  20-22  accused  

persons  committed  dacoities  in  the  Harijan  locality  by  

breaking  open  the  doors  of  the  main  gate  of  the  house  of  

3

Jasodiya  and  Kallu  P.W.14.  They  looted  the  house.  

Thereafter, Kallu, Jasodiya, Din Dayal, Sukhlal, Shripal, Tulsi,  

Ganga Ram, Deo Nath alias Madan were tied with rope and  

were taken to the bank of  the river  Ganges,  pushed in the  

boats and brutally murdered and thereafter all of them were  

thrown in the river Ganges, at a point where there were strong  

currents.    Out  of  seven,  five  dead  bodies  could  not  be  

retrieved.   Kallu P.W.14 jumped into the stream of the river  

Ganges  and  saved  his  life.   Jasodiya,  wife  of  Kallu  was  

recovered  from  the  river  Ganges  in  an  injured  and  

unconscious state and after she regained consciousness, she  

got a written report Ex. KA.1 scribed by the witness Shyam  

Lal  P.W.4  and  the  report  was  lodged  at  the  police  station  

Hathgaon of the District,  U.P..    The statement of Jasodiya  

recorded  under  section  161  Cr.P.C.  was  recorded  by  the  

Investigating Officer, the extract of which is Ex. KA.25.   The  

dying declaration Ex. KA.6 of Jasodiya was recorded by Dr. C.  

M.  Mittal,  Medical  Officer  at  midnight  on  10.9.1979.   She  

narrated that on the previous night i.e. 09.09.1979 at about  

11 p.m. about 20-22 persons came to her house.  They forced  

their entry inside the house by cutting open the door shutters  

4

of the house and looted the property.   The accused persons  

caught  hold  of  her  and  her  husband  Kallu,  Tulsi,  Madan,  

Ganga  Ram,  Din  Dayal,  Sukhlal  and  Shripal  sons  of  Din  

Dayal were also tied by a rope.  The accused had pretended to  

be the Police officials of the District Rai Bareilly who had come  

to arrest persons in connection with some dacoity which took  

place in Rai Bareilly.  

7. The accused persons had taken eight persons after tying  

them by a rope to the village Maheva on the bank of  river  

Ganges.  These abducted persons from that point were taken  

by two boats towards the east.  These two boats were being  

rowed by two boys belonging to the village Mahewa.  Jasodiya  

did  not  mention  their  names.   After  they  covered  some  

distance  on  boats  towards  the  east  they  were  forced  to  

disembark  from  the  boats.   Jasodiya  started  weeping  and  

crying  and  her  husband  Kallu,  who  was  also  terribly  

frightened  managed  to  jump  into  the  stream  of  the  river  

Ganges and swam to safety.  Jasodiya, who continued to cry  

and weep, was attacked by the accused with knives and she  

was shot at by firing from gun and she was thrown in the river  

Ganges.  Jasodiya was taken by the swift current of the river  

5

Ganges  to  village  Jafrabad  where  she  was  spotted  by  two  

persons who took her out of the river Ganges.  She expressed  

her apprehension about the killing of the remaining abducted  

persons by the said accused who were pretending to be the  

police personnel. This report Ex. KA.1 was sent to the Station  

Officer of the Police Station Hussainganj for investigation and  

necessary action.  Similar story was narrated by Jasodiya to  

the  Investigating  Officer  Devi  Dayal  Dixit,  as  would  appear  

from the extract Ex. KA 25 and also in the dying declaration  

Ex. KA.6.     

8. Two persons spotted  Jasodiya  when  she reached  near  

the bank of the river in village Jafrabad.  They reached at the  

bank of the river, took her out and put her on a small cot and  

she was warmed by fire under a Mahuwa tree.  Thereafter, she  

was  taken  for  medical  examination  of  her  injuries  at  the  

Public Health Centre (for short, PHC) Hathgaon, where Dr. C.  

M. Mittal examined the injuries of Jasodiya.   She was taken  

there by Chet Ram 149 C.P. and Rais Ahmad 454 C.P. of the  

Police  Station Hathgaon who had identified Jasodiya before  

Dr. C. M. Mittal.  The examination took place at 10.30 pm on  

10.9.1979.  Dr. Mittal assessed the age of Jasodiya around 50  

6

years and he found the  following injuries  on the  person of  

Jasodiya:

“1.  Two incised  wounds of  ½” x 1/8”,  depth not  measured,  other  wound  ½”  x  1/8”  x  depth  not  measured, which are on the left side neck 2” below  from the  left  mastoid  process.   The  wounds  are  paralleled  and  one  inch  distance  between  two  wounds.   Bleeding not there.  Margins were clear  cut and well defined.

2. A gun shot wound entry of ½” x ½” x muscle  deep size  on the lower  abdomen 3 ½” below the  umbilicus.

3. Gun shot wound of entry ½” x ½” x muscle  deep size  on the  outer  aspect  of  right  thigh 3½”  from  the  right  anterior  superior  iliac  spine.   No  bleeding.

Injury  No.  (1)  kept  under  observation  caused  by  some sharp weapon.  Rest injuries caused by fire  arm  weapon.   Referred  to  District  Hospital,  Fatehpur for treatment and advised X-ray of all the  affected parts. Duration about one day old.”

Dr.  Mittal  prepared  injury  report  Ex  KA.5  and  according to his statement these injuries could be  caused in  the  night  between 9/10.9.1979 at  any  time  after  11  PM.   Dr.  Mittal  also  recorded  the  dying  declaration  of  Smt.  Jasodiya  in  the  same  night at about mid night.  The dying declaration is  Ex. KA.6.”

9.  Jasodiya  succumbed  to  the  injuries  and  died  on  

11.9.1979.   Bhim  Singh  conducted  inquest  proceedings  in  

respect of the dead body of Jasodiya.  He prepared inquest  

7

report Ex. KA.17, Photo Nash Ex. KA.18, Challan Nash Ex.  

KA.19,  Report  for  post-mortem examination  Ex.  KA.20  and  

report for sending clothes etc. removed from the dead body of  

Jasodiya Ex. KA.21.  

  10. The post-mortem of Jasodiya was conducted by Dr. S.K.  

Tandon,  P.W.6,  Medical  Officer  working  at  the  District  

Hospital, Fatehpur on 12.9.1979 at 2 p.m.   Dr. Tandon found  

the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body:

“1. One gun shot wound of entry ½” x ½” x bone  deep on the anterior lateral surface of upper third  of right thigh.  Margins lacerated.  Blackening and  tattooing present.

2. One gun shot wound of exit ½” x ½” x muscle  deep  on  the  leluic  region  4”  below  umbilicus.  Margins  everted  and  lacerated.   No  blackening  present.

Injury No. (1) and (2) are interconnected with each  other.   There  is  laceration  of  right  femual  vessel  under injury No. 1.   No Gun shot recovered from  the body after extensive search.  Direction right to  left and upward.

3. Contusion 4” x 1” right side back.

4. Abrasion ½” x ½” x on ankle region.

5. Incised wound 1” x ½” muscle deep on left  side neck 1 ½” below the left ear.  Margins  everted and clean out.

8

6. Incised  wound 1”  x  ½”  x  muscle  deep,  left  side of neck.

In  internal  examination  heart  was  found  empty and the stomach was also found empty.

The  death  was  caused  due  to  shock  and  haemorrhage  due  to  ante-mortem  injuries.   The  ante-mortem injuries  were  quite  sufficient  in  the  ordinary course of nature to cause the death.  He  had taken off a Dhoti, One keel of nose, ring, 17  Chooriyan (bangles), 6 Bachchey, two ear-rings and  sealed  them  and  gave  them  to  Constable  Rais  Ahmad for being taken to the police station.”

11. The dead body of Shripal, S/o Din Dayal was recovered  

from the river Ganges and its inquest was conducted by Bhim  

Singh,  Sub-Inspector posted at the Police Station Hathgaon.  

After  appointing  Panchas,  Sub-Inspector  Bhim  Singh  

inspected the dead body of Shripal and prepared the inquest  

report.   Dr. P. Joshi, P.W.7 who was working as the Medical  

Officer,  District  Hospital,  Fatehpur,  conducted  the  post-

mortem on the dead body of Shripal and found the following  

injuries:

“1. One  gun shot  wound of  entrance  1”  x  1”  x  abdominal cavity deep at 11 O’ clock position 1 ½”  apart from umblicus loop of bowes protruding out  of  the  wound.   Margins  lacerated  and  inverted.  Blackening and tattooing present.

2. One  gun shot  wound of  entrance  1”  x  1”  x  chest cavity deep on the left side of chest 3 O’clock  

9

position,  1  ½”  apart  from  left  nipple.  Margins  lacerated,  inverted.   Blackening  and  tattooing  present.

3. One  gun shot  wound of  entrance  1”  x  1”  x  chest  cavity  deep on right  side  back upper  third  part  scapular  region.   Margins  lacerated.  Blackening and tattooing present.

4. Multiple gun shot wound of entrance on the  left side of chest and abdomen 1/8” x 1.8” x muscle  cavity deep in an area of 5” x 7” x 10” downwards  from left anterior axillary fold.  Margins lacerated  and everted.  Blackening and tattooing absent.”

On internal examination, Dr. Joshi found fracture  of 4th rib from side and 11th and 12th ribs on side.  Fracture of scapula right side. Right and left lungs  were  found  lacerated  and  perforated  at  places.  Clotted blood was found in the lungs in substance.  Both pleural cavity contained 1 LB and 10Z. blood.  Peritonial cavity contains blood mixed with digested  food  one  pound  ounce  clotted  blood  present.  Stomach was found normal and its contents were  digested food measuring 4 0z. with gasses.   Small  and large intestines were perforated throughout at  places along with mesenteric vessels.  The liver was  found  lacerated  in  left  lobe.    Gall  bladder  was  found normal.   Spleen was found perforated and  left kidney was found lacerated and perforated.

The  death  was  caused  due  to  shock  and  haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.”

12. The dead bodies of the remaining abducted persons viz.  

Madan,  Tulsi,  Ganga,  Sukhlal  and Din Dayal  could  not  be  

traced.   

10

13. On  15.9.1979,  the  Investigating  Officer  recorded  the  

statements of Dashrath and other witnesses. The Investigating  

Officer  arrested  the  accused  Udai  Bhan  Singh  alias  Lallan  

Singh on 22.9.1979.   On 23.9.1979, the Investigating Officer  

raided the houses of the other accused persons but they were  

not traceable.   On that very day, he recorded the statements  

of  witnesses  Suraj  Prasad,  Lalta  Prasad,  Budhuwa,  Tejram  

Prem Shankar and Uma Shanker.

14. On  24.9.1979,  the  Investigating  Officer  arrested  the  

accused  Virendra  Singh  and  recorded  his  statement.   On  

28.9.1979, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of  

witnesses Jagat Narain, Bhagwat and Sumer.  On 1.10.1979  

accused Lavkush was arrested.  On 3.10.1979 accused Man  

Singh and Chaturbhuj Singh were arrested.   On 7.10.1979  

accused  Faiyaz  was  arrested.    Accused  Dhirendra  Singh,  

Ganga  Din,  Banwari  and  Cheddu  alias  Virendra  Singh  

surrendered in court on 7.10.1979 and they were sent to jail.

15. On  11.10.1979,  the  Investigating  Officer  recorded  the  

statement of  witness Rai  Dutt.   On that very day,  accused  

Suraj Bali Singh surrendered himself in court and was sent to  

11

jail.    On the next day, i.e. 12.10.1979 accused Ram Niwas  

Singh  alias  Chhaila  Singh  and  Mathura  Singh  alias  Vijai  

Bahadur  Singh  surrendered  themselves  in  court  and  were  

sent  to  jail.    On  13.10.1979  accused  Vijai  Karan  Singh  

surrendered  himself  in  court  and  was  sent  to  jail.  The  

Investigating  Officer  recorded  the  statements  of  witnesses  

Barati  Lal  and  Nanku  on  20.10.1979.   Accused  Subhash  

Singh surrendered himself in court on 29.10.1979 and he was  

also sent to jail.    Accused Chunna surrendered himself  in  

court on 12.11.1979.

16. On 25.11.1979, the Investigating Officer filed a charge-

sheet  against  15  persons,  namely  Mathura  Singh,  Ram  

Sajiwan,  Udai  Bhan  Singh,  Ram  Niwas  Singh,  Suraj  Pal  

Singh,  Banwari,  Lavkush,  Man  Singh,  Virendra  Singh,  

Dhirendra  Singh,  Tejpal  Singh,  Faiyaz,  Munna,  Vijai  Karan  

Singh and Chandra Bhan Singh.  Thereafter on 7.12.1979, a  

second  charge-sheet  was  filed  by  the  Investigating  Officer  

against three accused, namely Cheddu Singh, Subhash Singh  

and Ganga Din.       

12

17. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the  

witness  Kallu  P.W.14,  s/o  Sukkha  on  7.12.1979.   The  

evidence of this witness is extremely significant in the entire  

case.  Kallu P.W.14 is the only surviving injured eye-witness  

who has given graphic description of the entire incident.  He  

narrated that he and his wife  were in their  house.   Out of  

about 25 to 30 people, about seven people were in the police  

uniform and others in plain clothes.   He named 18 accused  

persons along with their villages.  He stated that the accused  

persons entered their house by breaking open the door.  They  

caught hold of him and his wife and also Ganga, Tulsi, Deo  

Nath, Din Dayal, Sukhlal and Shripal.  According to him, the  

accused were holding rifles,  guns,  revolvers,  axes etc.   The  

accused  had  large  sized  lights  and  they  were  keeping  the  

lights  on.   They forcibly  took them to the  side  of  the  river  

Ganges. They were made to sit in two boats.  The accused also  

sat on the boat and took them between Surajpur and Naroli.  

There was a dense forest on the side of the river.  They got  

descended there.    According to  Kallu P.W.14,  the  accused  

first killed his brother Deo Nath and then Shripal.  Thereafter,  

they killed Sukhlal, Ganga Ram and Tulsi.  According to his  

13

statement, they were standing on the said bank of the river.  

According to him, when his turn came, he took a somersault  

and jumped into the river Ganges.   Thereafter, according to  

him, his wife was also killed.  He further stated that he made  

a deep dip in the water and came out at some distance.  At  

that point the accused were showing lights at him.   Then, he  

again made a dip and thereafter he reached floating the sand  

in middle of the river Ganges in the forest and continued lying  

there.    

18. Kallu stated that thereafter, he went to the police station  

of Dalmau where he was not heard and his statement was not  

recorded.  Then he went to the forest of Munna and spent the  

night  lying  there.   Next  day,  he  went  towards  Lalganj  and  

reached Rai Bareilly and from there, he went to Bijnore and  

stayed there for some days.  Thereafter, he went to Lucknow.  

He also mentioned in his statement that he had no enmity  

with  Mathura  Singh.   He  further  stated  that  before  this  

incident,  a  dacoity  was committed  at  the  place  of  Mathura  

Singh in which brother of Mathura Singh, Raj Bahadur was  

killed.    

14

19. In his cross-examination, he stated that he was brought  

by the police from Punjab.  He came to the village in police  

escort.    In  his  statement,  he  has stated  that  the  accused  

persons  used  to  come  to  the  place  of  Mathura  Singh  

frequently and therefore, he knew and recognized them.  He  

stated that he had also sent a complaint of 50 typed papers to  

Smt. Indira Gandhi and Shri Jagjivan Ram.  Perhaps at the  

intervention of some senior leader, the police investigated this  

matter.    In  his  cross-examination,  he  has  stated  that  in  

Lucknow he met one M.L.A. at  Darulshafa (M.L.A’s Hostel).  

He also met Shri Chhotey Lal, M.L.A. of District Hardoi.  He  

also stated that Shri Chhotey Lal advised him to hide in the  

forests to save his life and that when it would be needed, they  

would locate him.   He further stated that his statement was  

recorded before the Magistrate.  According to him, the night of  

the incident was bright because it was a moonlit night.  He  

also  denied  that  he  gave  the  statement  to  the  Magistrate  

under pressure.

20. The prosecution, apart from Kallu P.W.14, also examined  

the other 32 witnesses and a large number of documents to  

prove its case.  We would not like to burden the judgment by  

15

naming all the prosecution witnesses.  We will deal with their  

statements  as  and  when  it  becomes  imperative.  The  

statements  of  the  accused  persons  were  recorded  under  

section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  The accused  

denied their participation and suggested that they have been  

falsely implicated because of enmity.    

 21. Most of the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile.  

Kallu  P.W.14  who  was  one  of  the  victims  of  dacoity  and  

abduction and whose  death  was attempted  by  the  accused  

persons,  has  fully  supported  the  prosecution  case.   Head  

Constable Kashi Prasad Tiwari P.W.27 has also supported the  

prosecution case.  He had seen accused Lallan Singh, Munna,  

Mathura  Singh,  Vijai  Karan,  Chhaila  Singh  and  Dhirendra  

Singh on 9.9.1979 at 6 p.m. at the road running towards east  

of the police out-post Chheolaha.   According to him accused  

Mathura Singh and Vijai Karan Singh had rifles.  He stated  

that he enquired from Lallan Singh alias Udai Bhan Singh as  

to where they were going or whether they were going to do  

some big job and then in reply accused Lallan Singh told him  

that they were going to village Lohari.    

16

22. Maharajiya P.W.3 had been treated as a hostile witness,  

though she had corroborated the prosecution story to some  

extent.   She is the wife of Din Dayal who had been abducted  

and murdered in this occurrence.  Her two sons Shripal and  

Sukhlal have also been abducted and murdered.  P.W.3 has  

supported the  prosecution case only to the  extent  that  her  

husband Din Dayal and sons Sukhlal and Shripal were taken  

away by the accused persons.     

23. The  other  witness  who  has  partly  corroborated  the  

prosecution  story,  though  he  has  also  been  treated  as  a  

hostile  witness  by  the  prosecution  and  subject  to  cross-

examination is Dashrath PW.28.  He stated that about 1 ½  

years  ago  he  was  going  to  his  village  within  police  station  

Hussainganj from Fatehpur and when he reached mile no. 7  

at 6.30 p.m. he saw 5-6 persons sitting on the bridge.  Out of  

these  5-6  persons  he  recognized  accused  Mathura  Singh,  

resident of Lohari, Chandra, resident of Gaura, but he could  

not identify the remaining persons.  He stated that he heard  

these persons talking that they would go to Lohari and kill the  

residents of Lohari and to throw away their dead bodies in the  

river Ganges.  He also stated that the father of Ram Prasad of  

17

Lohari be killed and his body be thrown in the Ganges.  He  

has named Dhirendra Singh Thakur, Man Singh Thakur and  

Vijai Karan Singh Thakur who were armed with rifles.

24. In this case, the statement made by Jasodiya, another  

victim in this occurrence, was treated as a dying declaration.  

She  stated  that  on  09.09.1979  at  11  p.m.  20-22  persons  

armed with guns and rifles forced their entry inside her house  

and caught hold of her and her husband Kallu.  They also  

caught hold of Ganga, Tulsi, Madan, Din Dayal and his two  

sons Shripal and Sukhlal and all of them were tied with ropes  

and were made to go to jungle and thereafter they were taken  

to the bank of the river Ganges.  They crossed the river on two  

boats and across the river those persons fired guns and rifles.  

She further narrated that immediately after her husband was  

untied,  he  jumped  into  the  river  Ganges.   She  was  also  

attacked  and  injured  with  knife  and  gun  shots  and  was  

thrown in the river Ganges.   She apprehended that the other  

persons namely Ganga, Tulsi, Madan Din Dayal and his two  

sons Shripal and Sukhlal would have been killed and thrown  

in the river Ganges.  She further stated that she floated in the  

river and reached by the side of Jafrabad and she succeeded  

18

in coming out of the river Ganges, when two persons saw her  

and took her on a cot and brought under a Mahua tree and  

there she was warmed by the fire.    

25. Dr.  H.K.  Tandon  conducted  the  post-mortem  

examination on the dead body of Jasodiya.  According to him,  

her omission to mention the names of the accused Mathura  

Singh  and  Ram Sajiwan  in  the  dying  declaration  could  be  

attributed to the state of deep shock in which she was when  

she made the statement.   

26. The trial court has carefully examined the witnesses and  

also appreciated the defence version as to why the testimony  

of Kallu P.W.14 should not be believed.  It was contended that  

his testimony could not be believed because he was brought  

from Punjab in police escort.   The trial court observed that  

the evidence of Kallu P.W.14 was the only surviving witness of  

the  occurrence.   The  possibility  of  his  being  attacked  and  

killed could not be ruled out and it  was imperative for  the  

District Police Administration to provide police escort to him  

so  he  could  safely  reach the  court  and back.  It  cannot  be  

inferred that P.W.14 had been tutored by the police to support  

19

the  prosecution  case  because  they  provided  police  escort.  

According to the trial  court,  Kallu is the eye-witness to the  

occurrence and the only surviving persons out of 8 persons  

who  were  abducted  from  village  Lohari.   The  trial  court  

observed that there was absolutely no material elicited by the  

defence  in  his  cross-examination  which  may  render  his  

statement unbelievable.  Kallu P.W.14 clearly stated that he  

had no animus against the accused persons and he could not  

say as to why the accused persons committed dacoities and  

abducted  and  killed  the  persons  named  above  in  the  

occurrence.    He  had  recognized  18  accused  persons.   He  

stated that he knew Ram Sajiwan and Mathura Singh because  

they  belong  to  his  village  Lahori  and  also  other  accused  

persons  because  they  used  to  visit  the  house  of  Mathura  

Singh  frequently.  P.W.14  had  stated  that  it  was  a  moonlit  

night and they were all having big lights with them and all the  

accused had open faces and none of them had concealed or  

covered their faces.  In the instant case, accused persons were  

with Kallu PW14 for quite sometime.  Accused persons had  

tied Kallu and other seven persons with rope and took them to  

the bank of river Ganga and put them in two boats and they  

20

were thrown in the river where currents were strong.  There  

was enough time to recognize the accused persons properly.

27. According  to  the  trial  court,  the  statement  of  Kallu  

P.W.14 regarding the occurrence appears to be a true version  

of the occurrence.  The relevant observation of the trial court  

is set out as under:

“47. Kallu  after  escaping  death  went  to  Dalmau  Police Station but he was not heard and believed.  Then  he  went  to  Rae  Bareilly  and  from there  to  Bijnore, Lucknow etc.  During this period he sent  some  applications  to  the  various  leaders  of  the  country.   The  fact  remains  that  Kallu  was  quite  shocked and frightened and he could not dare to  come to Fetehpur all alone.  It cannot be said that  Kallu  had  been  tutored  there  to  implicate  the  accused persons in this occurrence.”

The trial court further observed that:

“…..Once abduction of these persons is established  it is for the accused to show as to what happened  to them and that they were alive and not dead.  In  the  instant  case  there  is  evidence  of  Kallu  that  these persons were murdered by the accused and  their companions and there is no evidence of these  persons being alive.  Under these circumstances it  is proved that these five persons were also killed  and thus murdered in this incident.”

28. The  trial  court  further  observed  that  in  view  of  the  

testimony  of  Kallu,  who  is  an  independent  and  reliable  

witness  and his  statement  contains the  true  version of  the  

21

occurrence.   The  accused  persons  and  their  companions  

committed multiple murders of the seven innocent persons of  

Harijan caste in cold blood.  It was a ghastly crime committed  

by them which can shock the conscience of any person of a  

civilized society.  According to the trial court, it may be a case  

of  a caste war in which the accused and their  companions  

wanted to teach a lesson to the persons of  the lower caste  

(Harijan and Chamars in this case).  The trial court found that  

the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the charge of  

abduction of Kallu, his wife Jasodiya, Ganga, Tulsi, Deo Nath,  

Din  Dayal,  Shripal  and  Sukhlal  with  the  intention  of  

committing their murder.  The trial court observed that the  

prosecution has also  succeeded in  establishing  beyond any  

shadow  of  reasonable  doubt  of  the  charge  of  dacoity  

punishable under section 395 IPC against the accused.   The  

trial  court  further  observed  that  the  accused  persons  were  

further liable to be held guilty of the charge punishable under  

section  201  IPC  for  destroying  the  evidence  of  murder  by  

throwing  the  dead  bodies  of  the  said  victims  in  the  river  

Ganges, except Jasodiya who at that time had not died but  

was  seriously  wounded  and  later  on  succumbed  to  her  

22

injuries.  The trial court convicted 18 accused persons named  

by Kallu P.W.14 in his testimony and sentenced them to life  

imprisonment.   

29. The accused respondents herein filed an appeal  before  

the High Court of Allahabad against the judgment of the trial  

court.  The appeal before the High Court was in the nature of  

first appeal and the High Court in a case of this nature was  

expected  to  carefully  analyze  the  entire  evidence  and  

documents  on  record  but  unfortunately  the  High  Court  

without analyzing the entire evidence set aside the judgment  

of the trial court on the following grounds:  

• Smt.  Jasodiya  in  her  first  information  report  which  was  construed  as  the  dying  declaration  did not name the appellant.

• The statement of Kallu PW14 was recorded after  three months and because of his silence for three  months his statement is not worth relying.

• The  High  Court  has  drawn  adverse  inference  because the copy of the complaint sent to Mrs.  Indira Gandhi and Shri  Jagjivan Ram was not  produced by Kallu PW14.

30. The High Court termed the testimony of Kallu PW14 as  

untrustworthy.  The findings of the High Court are not based  

on proper analysis and marshalling of the entire evidence on  

23

record.  As a matter of fact, the High Court in the impugned  

judgment did not discuss the evidence on record.   

31. A careful examination of the case in a proper perspective  

leads us to an entirely different conclusion.  The High Court  

ought  to  have  appreciated  the  mental  frame  of  Jasodiya  

wherein she gave a statement which was construed as a dying  

declaration.  The eight persons who were abducted and tied  

with rope and brought to river Ganges in the midstream and  

after their murder were thrown in the river one by one except  

Kallu PW14 who escaped because he jumped into the river.  In  

that  fear psyche,  naming the appellants  would have  meant  

risking  her  life  and in  that  state  of  mind,  the  omission  of  

mentioning the names of the appellants is not unnatural and  

her testimony cannot be discarded on that count.  

32. Similarly,  the  High  Court  has  failed  to  appreciate  the  

circumstances in which Kallu PW14 has survived by jumping  

into the river and hiding at certain places.  In a genocide and  

massacre which was witnessed by him, wherein all his seven  

close relatives including his wife were killed one after other in  

his presence and were thrown in the river Ganga, his escaping  

24

the death was a miracle.  Hiding and saving his life from a  

mighty cruel upper caste group was a normal human instinct.  

Any reasonable or prudent person would have behaved in the  

same manner.  Immediately after his escape, he tried to make  

a complaint but he did not succeed.  Ultimately when he wrote  

to Smt. Indira Gandhi and Shri Jagjivan Ram, perhaps at the  

intervention of someone, the police seriously investigated the  

matter and he was brought to his village Lohari under police  

protection.  The delay in giving his statement is fully explained  

and in the facts and circumstances of the case delay was quite  

natural.  In a case of this nature, the witnesses turning hostile  

is not unusual particularly in a scenario where upper caste  

people have created such a great fear psyche. The instinct of  

survival is paramount and the witnesses cannot be faulted for  

not  supporting the  prosecution version.   Even the evidence  

which is on record particularly of Jasodiya and Kallu PW14  

supported by the evidence of  Head Constable  Kashi  Prasad  

Tiwari  PW27  is  sufficient  to  bring  home  the  guilt  of  the  

accused.  The evidence of PW14 and PW27 lead to the only  

conclusion  that  the  accused  were  squarely  responsible  for  

committing such a ghastly crime.

25

33. We  are  quite  conscious  of  the  fact  that  this  court  is  

interfering with a case where there was a conviction by the  

trial  court  which ended up in acquittal  by the High Court.  

This  Court  is  usually  very  slow  in  interfering  with  the  

acquittals.  In the instant case, the findings of the High Court  

are palpably erroneous and unsustainable.

34. This court would not have interfered if  the view which  

has been taken by the High Court is a possible or plausible  

view.  In our considered view, on proper scrutiny of the entire  

evidence and documents on record, no other view is possible  

except  the  guilt  of  some  of  the  accused.   The  High  Court  

without  analyzing  the  evidence  and  assigning  any  cogent  

reason set aside the well reasoned judgment of the Additional  

Sessions Judge and acquitted all the respondents.

35. We are equally conscious of the fact that reversal of the  

judgment  of  the  High  Court  would  mean  sentence  of  life  

imprisonment for some of the accused.  We have given patient  

hearing  to  the  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  have  

examined and re-examined the entire evidence and documents  

on record to ensure that no innocent person is punished.  On  

26

a careful scrutiny of the statement of Kallu PW14, only one  

aspect  creates  slight  doubt  in  our  minds  about  his  

remembering the names of the 18 accused persons along with  

the  names  of  their  villages  after  a  lapse  of  three  months.  

Some  people  with  sharp  memory  may  perhaps  be  able  to  

recount and recall all the names and villages correctly.   But  

when we take the case of ordinary rustic illiterate villager, the  

possibility  of  over  implications  cannot  be  fully  ruled  out.  

Kallu  PW14  has  named  all  the  18  accused  but  the  

independent  witness  Head  Constable  Kashi  Prasad  Tiwari  

PW27 has named Lallan, Munna, Mathura Singh, Vijai Karan  

Singh, Chhaila Singh and Dhirendra Singh.  So as far as these  

names  are  concerned,  we  find  corroboration  from  the  

testimony of Head Constable Kashi Prasad Tiwari PW27 and  

there cannot be slightest doubt regarding their participation in  

this  ghastly  crime.   We  have  strong  suspicion  about  

participation of Ram Sajivan but we are giving him benefit of  

doubt because he has not been named by PW27.

36.  Before  we  part  with  this  judgment,  we  deem  it  

appropriate to deal with judicial parameters to deal with the  

cases in which this court would be justified in reversing the  

27

judgment of acquittal. This court would ordinarily be slow in  

interfering in order of acquittal.  The scope of  the powers of  

the appellate court in an appeal is well settled.  The powers of  

the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal are no less  

than in an appeal against conviction.

37. In  Tulsiram Kanu  v.  The State,  AIR 1954 SC 1,  this  

Court explicated that the appellate court would be justified in  

reversing  the  acquittal  only  when  very  substantial  question  

and compelling reasons are present.  In this case, the Court  

used  a  different  phrase  to  describe  the  approach  of  an  

appellate  court  against  an  order  of  acquittal.   There,  the  

Sessions  Court  expressed  that  there  was  clearly  reasonable  

doubt in respect of the guilt of the accused on the evidence put  

before  it.  Kania,  C.J.,  observed  that  it  required  good  and  

sufficiently cogent reasons to overcome such reasonable doubt  

before the appellate court came to a different conclusion.  

38. In Lekha Yadav v. State of Bihar (1973) 2 SCC 424, the  

Court  following  the  case  of  Sheo  Swarup  (supra) again  

reiterated the legal position as under:

28

“The different phraseology used in the judgments of  this Court such as-

(a) substantial and compelling reasons:

(b) good and sufficiently cogent reasons;  

(c) strong reasons.

are not intended to curtail the undoubted power of  an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal to  review the entire evidence and to come to its own  conclusion,  but  in  doing  so  it  should  not  only  consider every matter on record having a bearing on  the questions of fact and the reasons given by the  court below in support of its order of acquittal but  should express the reasons in its  judgment which  led it to hold that the acquittal was not justified.”  

39. In  Bishan  Singh  &  Others  v.  The  State  of  Punjab  

(1974)  3  SCC  288,  Justice  Khanna  speaking  for  the  Court  

provided the legal position:

“22. It is well settled that the High Court in appeal  under  Section  417  of  the  CrPC has  full  power  to  review at large the evidence on which the order of  acquittal was founded and to reach the conclusion  that upon the evidence the order of acquittal should  be  reversed.  No  limitation  should  be  placed  upon  that power unless is be found expressly stated be in  the Code, but in exercising the power conferred by  the Code and before  reaching its  conclusion upon  fact the High Court should give proper weight and  consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the  trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2)  the  presumption  of  innocence  in  favour  of  the  accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by  the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3)  the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt;  &  (4)  the  slowness  of  an  appellate  court  in  

29

disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a judge who  had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.”

40. In Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. The State of Gujarat (1978)  

1 SCC 228, the Court observed thus:

“In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court  would not ordinarily interfere with the Trial Court’s  conclusion unless  there  are  compelling reasons to  do so inter alia on account of manifest errors of law  or of fact resulting in miscarriage of justice.”

41. In  B.N.  Mutto & Another  v.  Dr. T.K.  Nandi  (1979)  1  

SCC 361, the Court observed thus:

“It  stems  out  of  the  fundamental  principle  of  our  criminal jurisprudence that the accused is entitled  to  the  benefit  of  any  reasonable  doubt.  If  two  reasonably  probable  and evenly  balanced  views  of  the  evidence  are  possible,  one  must  necessarily  concede the existence of  a  reasonable doubt.  But,  fanciful and remote possibilities must be left out of  account. To entitle an accused person to the benefit  of a doubt arising from the possibility of a duality of  views,  the  possible  view  in  favour  of  the  accused  must  be  as  nearly  reasonably  probable  as  that  against him. If  the preponderance of probability is  all  one way, a bare possibility of another view will  not entitle the accused to claim the benefit of any  doubt. It is, therefore, essential that any view of the  evidence  in  favour  of  the  accused  must  be  reasonable even as any doubt, the benefit of which  an accused person may claim, must be reasonable.  "A reasonable doubt",  it  has been remarked, "does  not mean some light, airy, insubstantial doubt that  may flit through the minds of any of us about almost  anything at some time or other, it does not mean a  doubt  begotten  by  sympathy  out  of  reluctance  to  convict;  it  means  a  real  doubt,  a  doubt  founded  

30

upon reasons. [Salmond J. in his charge to the jury  in R. v. Fantle reported in 1959 Criminal Law Review  584.]"             

{emphasis supplied}

42. In  Tota Singh & Another  v.  State of Punjab  (1987) 2  

SCC  529,  the  Court  reiterated  the  same  principle  in  the  

following words:

“This  Court  has repeatedly  pointed  out  that  the mere fact that the appellate court is inclined on  a  re-appreciation  of  the  evidence  to  reach  a  conclusion  which  is  at  variance  with  the  one  recorded  in  the  order  of  acquittal  passed  by  the  court  below  will  not  constitute  a  valid  and  sufficient  ground  for  setting  aside  the  acquittal.  The jurisdiction  of  the  appellate  court  in  dealing  with  an  appeal  against  an  order  of  acquittal  is  circumscribed by the limitation that no interference  is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the  approach  made  by  the  lower  court  to  the  consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated  by  some  manifest  illegality  or  the  conclusion  recorded by the court below is such which could  not  have  been  possibly  arrived  at  by  any  court  acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore,  liable to be characterised as perverse.  Where two  views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence  adduced in the case and the court below has taken  a view which is a plausible one, the appellate court  cannot legally interfere with an order of acquittal  even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by  the court below on its consideration of the evidence  is erroneous.”

(emphasis supplied)

43. In Harijana Thirupala & Others v. Public Prosecutor,  

High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (2002) 6 SCC 470, this Court  

31

again had an occasion to deal with the settled principles of law  

restated by several decisions of this Court.  Despite a number  

of  judgments,  High Courts  continue to  fail  to  keep them in  

mind before reaching a conclusion.  The Court observed thus:

“10. The principles to be kept in mind in our  system  of  administration  of  criminal  justice  are  stated  and  restated  in  several  decisions  of  this  Court. Yet, sometimes High Courts fail to keep them  in mind before reaching a conclusion as to the guilt  or otherwise of the accused in a given case. The case  on hand is one such case. Hence it is felt necessary  to remind about the well-settled principles again. It  is desirable and useful to remind and keep in mind  these principles in deciding a case.

11. In our administration of criminal justice an  accused is presumed to be innocent unless such a  presumption  is  rebutted  by  the  prosecution  by  producing the evidence to show him to be guilty of  the offence with which he is charged. Further if two  views are possible on the evidence produced in the  case, one indicating to the guilt of the accused and  the other to his  innocence,  the view favourable  to  the accused is to be accepted. In cases where the  court  entertains  reasonable  doubt  regarding  the  guilt of the accused the benefit of such doubt should  go in favour of the accused. At the same time, the  court must not reject the evidence of the prosecution  taking  it  as  false,  untrustworthy  or  unreliable  on  fanciful grounds or on the basis of conjectures and  surmises.  The  case  of  the  prosecution  must  be  judged as a whole having regard to the totality of the  evidence. In appreciating the evidence the approach  of  the  court  must  be  integrated  not  truncated  or  isolated. In other words, the impact of the evidence  in totality on the prosecution case or innocence of  the accused has to be kept in mind in coming to the  conclusion  as  to  the  guilt  or  otherwise  of  the  

32

accused. In reaching a conclusion about the guilt of  the  accused,  the  court  has  to  appreciate,  analyse  and  assess  the  evidence  placed  before  it  by  the  yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic value and the  animus  of  witnesses.  It  must  be  added  that  ultimately  and  finally  the  decision  in  every  case  depends upon the facts of each case.

12. Doubtless the High Court in appeal either  against  an  order  of  acquittal  or  conviction  as  a  court of first  appeal has full  power to review the  evidence to reach its own independent conclusion.  However,  it  will  not  interfere  with  an  order  of  acquittal lightly or merely because one other view  is possible, because with the passing of an order of  acquittal presumption of innocence in favour of the  accused  gets  reinforced  and  strengthened.  The  High Court would not be justified to interfere with  the order of acquittal merely because it feels that  sitting as a trial court it would have proceeded to  record  a  conviction;  a  duty  is  cast  on  the  High  Court  while  reversing  an  order  of  acquittal  to  examine and discuss the reasons given by the trial  court  to  acquit  the  accused  and  then  to  dispel  those reasons. If the High Court fails to make such  an exercise the judgment will  suffer from serious  infirmity.”

44. In Chandrappa & Others v. State of Karnataka (2007)  

4 SCC 415, this Court held:

“(1)  An  appellate  court  has  full  power  to  review,  reappreciate  and  reconsider  the  evidence  upon  which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2)  The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no  limitation,  restriction  or  condition  on  exercise  of  such power and an appellate court on the evidence  before  it  may  reach  its  own  conclusion,  both  on  questions of fact and of law.   

33

(3)  Various expressions,  such as,  “substantial  and  compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”,  “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”,  “glaring mistakes”,  etc.  are not intended to curtail  extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal  against  acquittal.  Such  phraseologies  are  more  in  the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise  the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with  acquittal  than to curtail  the power of the court to  review  the  evidence  and  to  come  to  its  own  conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind  that  in  case  of  acquittal,  there  is  double  presumption  in  favour  of  the  accused.  Firstly,  the  presumption of innocence is available to him under  the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence  that every person shall be presumed to be innocent  unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of  law.  Secondly,  the  accused  having  secured  his  acquittal,  the  presumption  of  his  innocence  is  further  reinforced,  reaffirmed and strengthened by  the trial court.       

                                                 (5) If  two reasonable conclusions are possible on  the  basis  of  the  evidence  on record,  the  appellate  court  should  not  disturb  the  finding  of  acquittal  recorded by the trial court.”

45. In the case of  Raj Narain v. State of U.P. & Others  

[Criminal  Appeal  Nos.  891-892  of  2002  decided  on  

18.09.2009], this Court reiterated the aforesaid view and held  

that even if two views are reasonably possible, one indicating  

conviction  and other  acquittal,  this  Court  will  not  interfere  

with  the  order  of  acquittal.  However,  this  Court  will  not  

34

hesitate to interfere with such order if the acquittal is perverse  

in the sense that no reasonable person would have come to  

that  conclusion,  or  if  the  acquittal  is  manifestly  illegal  or  

grossly unjust [See also Chikkarangaiah & Others v. State  

of Karnataka Criminal Appeals No. 634-635 of 2002 decided  

on 02.09.2009]

46. In  Sambasivan & Others  v.  State of Kerala  (1998) 5  

SCC 412, while relying on the case of Ramesh Babulal Doshi  

v. State of Gujarat  ((1996) 9 SCC 225, the Court observed  

thus:  

“7. The principles  with regard to the scope of  the  powers of the appellate court in an appeal against  acquittal,  are  well  settled.  The  powers  of  the  appellate court in an appeal against acquittal are no  less than in an appeal against conviction. But where  on  the  basis  of  evidence  on  record  two views  are  reasonably  possible  the  appellate  court  cannot  substitute its view in the place of that of the trial  court. It is only when the approach of the trial court  in  acquitting  an  accused  is  found  to  be  clearly  erroneous in its consideration of evidence on record  and  in  deducing  conclusions  therefrom  that  the  appellate  court  can  interfere  with  the  order  of  acquittal.”

47. In Ghurey Lal v. State of UP (2008) 10 SCC 450, one of  

us (Bhandari J.) summarized the legal position as follows in  

paras 69 and 70:

35

“69. The following principles emerge from the cases  above:

1. The appellate court may review the evidence in  appeals against acquittal under Sections 378 and  386  of  the  Criminal  Procedure  Code,  1973.  Its  power  of  reviewing  evidence  is  wide  and  the  appellate court can reappreciate the entire evidence  on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion  with respect to both facts and law.

2 The  accused  is  presumed  innocent  until  proven  guilty.  The  accused  possessed  this  presumption  when  he  was  before  the  trial  court.  The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption  that he is innocent.

3. Due or proper weight and consideration must  be  given  to  the  trial  court's  decision.  This  is  especially  true  when  a  witness'  credibility  is  at  issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a  different view of the evidence. There must also be  substantial and compelling reasons for holding that  the trial court was wrong.

70. In light of the above, the High Court and other  appellate  courts  should  follow  the  well-settled  principles crystallised by number of judgments if it  is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial  court's acquittal:

1. The  appellate  court  may  only  overrule  or  otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has  "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing  so.

A number of instances arise in which the appellate  court would have "very substantial and compelling  reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very  substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:

(i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the  facts is palpably wrong;

36

(ii) The  trial  court's  decision  was  based  on  an  erroneous view of law;

(iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in  grave miscarriage of justice";

(iv) The  entire  approach  of  the  trial  court  in  dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;

(v) The  trial  court's  judgment  was  manifestly  unjust and unreasonable;

(vi) The  trial  court  has  ignored  the  evidence  or  misread  the  material  evidence  or  has  ignored  material documents like dying declarations/report  of the ballistic expert, etc.

(vii)  This  list  is  intended  to  be  illustrative,  not  exhaustive.

2.  The  appellate  court  must  always  give  proper  weight and consideration to the findings of the trial  court.

3. If two reasonable views can be reached--one that  leads to acquittal, the other to conviction--the High  Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the  accused.”

48. In a recently delivered judgment of this court in State of  

U.P.  v.  Banne alias Baijnath & Others  (2009)4 SCC 271,  

one of us (Bhandari, J.) summarized the entire legal position  

and observed that this court would be justified in interfering  

in  the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  in  the  following  

circumstances which are illustrative and not exhaustive:

37

(i) The High court’s decision is based on totally  erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled  legal position;   

(ii) The High court’s conclusions are contrary to  evidence and documents on record.  

(iii) The  entire  approach  of  the  High  court  in  dealing with the evidence was patently illegal  leading to grave miscarriage of justice;  

(iv) The  High   court’s  judgment  is  manifestly  unjust and unreasonable based on erroneous  law and facts on the record of the case;   

(v) This  Court  must  always  give  proper  weight  and consideration to the findings of the High  Court.

(vi) This  court  would  be  extremely  reluctant  in  interfering with a case when both the Sessions  Court  and the High Court  have recorded an  order of acquittal.

49. The following principles emerge from the aforementioned  

cases.

1. The appellate court may review the evidence in  appeals against acquittal under sections 378 and  386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.  Its  power  of  reviewing  evidence  is  wide  and  the  appellate  court  can  reappreciate  the  entire  evidence on record. It can review the trial court’s  conclusion with respect to both facts and law.  

2. The accused is  presumed to  be  innocent  until  proved  guilty.   The  accused  possessed  this  presumption when he was before the trial court.  The  High  court’s  acquittal  bolsters  the  presumption that he is innocent.  

38

3.      There  must  also  be  substantial  and  compelling  reasons  for  reversing  an  order  of  acquittal.

This court would be justified in interfering with the judgment  

of  acquittal  of  the  High  Court  only  when  there  are  very  

substantial and compelling reasons to discard the High Court  

decision.  

50. When  we  apply  the  test  laid  down  by  this  court  

repeatedly in large number of cases, the irresistible conclusion  

is  that  the  High Court  in  the  impugned judgment  has not  

correctly followed the legal position.  In the instant case, the  

trial  court  exhaustively  dealt  with  the  entire  evidence  and  

documents on record and the findings of the High Court is  

based on proper marshalling and analyzing the evidence and  

documents  on  record.   The  trial  court  has  given  graphic  

description  of  the  entire  case  of  the  prosecution  and  the  

detailed circumstances in which the evidence of Kallu PW14  

was recorded.  To satisfy our conscience and to ensure that  

even  the  miscarriage  of  justice  should  not  take  place,  we  

reexamined  the  entire  evidence  and  documents  on  record.  

The trial court’s view is the only possible view in the facts and  

39

circumstances of the case.  Though the trial court convicted  

18 accused but to ensure that even the slightest miscarriage  

of justice should not take place, we have modified the order of  

the trial court and given benefit of doubt to 12 accused but as  

far  as other  six  accused are  concerned,  there  is  no iota  of  

doubt  about their  participation in  this  ghastly  crime where  

seven innocent persons of lower caste were literally butchered  

and were thrown in the river Ganges at a point where there  

were strong currents to wipe out the entire evidence in this  

case.  The High Court has neither analyzed the evidence nor  

the documents on record and without any cogent evidence,  

the High Court  by the impugned judgment has set  aside a  

very well reasoned judgment of the trial court.  

51. On  consideration  of  the  totality  of  the  facts  and  

circumstances of the case, we partly allow the appeal filed by  

the State and the acquittal of six accused namely (1) Mathura  

Singh  @  Vijay  Bahadur  Singh  R/o  Vill.  Lohari,  District  

Fatehpur, (2) Udai Bhan Singh @ Lallan Singh R/o Kasraon  

District. Fatehpur, (3) Dhirendra Singh R/o Mawaiya, District  

Fatehpur, (4) Munna son of Ram Lal R/o District Banda, (5)  

Ram  Niwas  Singh  alias  Challa  Singh  R/o  Siyari,  District  

40

Fatehpur, and (6) Vijay Karan Singh R/o Bhainsahi, District  

Fatehpur recorded by the High Court is set aside and their  

conviction as recorded by the trial court is restored. However,  

during the pendency of this appeal, Ram Niwas Singh alias  

Challa Singh died and consequently his appeal abates.   

52. The  bail  bonds of  the convicted accused are  cancelled  

and they are directed to surrender forthwith.  In case they do  

not surrender within a period of four weeks from today, the  

State of UP is directed to arrest and lodge them in the prison  

to  suffer  the  life  imprisonment.   Other  accused  who  were  

convicted by the trial court are given benefit of doubt.  They  

were acquitted by the High Court in the impugned judgment.  

Their acquittal is maintained.

53. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

…….…….……………………..J.                                          (Dalveer Bhandari)

………….……………………..J.                                                        (A.K. Patnaik) New Delhi; December 4, 2009

41