Page 1

Crl.A. Nos.493-495/09 etc.   

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.493-495 OF 2009

Inder Singh & Ors.        …..Appellants

Versus

State of Rajasthan            …..Respondent

W I T H

Criminal Appeal Nos.1238 of 2009; 1239 of 2009; 1241 of  2009; 1194 of 2011; and 1892 of 2011.

J U D G M E N T

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

1. All  these  eight  appeals  arise  out  of  one  criminal  case  

bearing  FIR  No.188/01  dated  10.09.2001  of  P.S.  Sunail,  Distt.  

Jhalwada (Rajasthan) lodged by informant Amar Singh (P.W.15)  

against 29 named co-villagers.  All the 29 accused persons were  

chargesheeted  by  the  police.   After  trial,  five  accused  were  

acquitted and the rest 24 were convicted for various offences.  

1

Page 2

Crl.A. Nos.493-495/09 etc.   

Five  appeals  preferred  by  22  convicts  were  disposed  of  by  a  

common judgment of the High Court dated 29.05.2008 which is  

impugned in 7 criminal appeals – 6 of them lodged in 2009 and  

Criminal Appeal No.1892 of 2011 by convict Kalu Lal lodged in  

2011.  Two of the convicts, namely, Ram Singh and Kesar Singh  

(accused nos.24 and 4 respectively) approached the High Court  

belatedly  through  jail  appeals  which  were  disposed  of  by  

judgment  dated  10.03.2011  which  is  impugned  in  Criminal  

Appeal No.1194 of 2011.  Since all the matters arise out of one  

criminal  case,  they  have  been  heard  together  and  are  being  

disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Before noticing the prosecution case and the main defence  

of the appellants, it is noted that out of 29 accused who were put  

on trial, accused nos.12, 15, 16, 22 and 23 (as per number in the  

trial court judgment) were acquitted by the trial court.  The High  

Court  acquitted  accused  no.17  whereas  accused  no.19  died  

during the pendency of his appeal before the High Court.  The  

records show that accused no.8, appellant Maan Singh has died  

during  the  pendency  of  his  appeal  before  this  Court.   Thus  

2

Page 3

Crl.A. Nos.493-495/09 etc.   

presently there are 21 appellants who have been convicted of  

offences under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 147 and 148 of the  

IPC.   Accused  nos.1,  2  and  3  have  also  been  convicted  for  

offences under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.  All have been  

awarded life imprisonment along with other sentences which are  

to run concurrently.

3. Before adverting to the prosecution case, it is also useful to  

note that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 10th  

September 2001 at 06:45 p.m. in Village Dhodi, at a distance of  

18 kms.  from the concerned police station.   The statement of  

informant  Ram Singh (P.W.15)  who was seriously  injured,  was  

recorded on the same date at 09:30 p.m. in presence of his uncle  

Chen Singh (P.W.17), by SHO at Camp Dhodi and formal FIR was  

recorded  on  same  date  at  10:30  p.m.   The  FIR  was  duly  

communicated  to  and  seen  by  the  Addl.  Chief  Metropolitan  

Magistrate  on  11.09.2001.   There  were  29  accused  persons  

named  in  the  FIR,  all  residents  of  Village  Dhodi.   The  four  

deceased who died on account of assault in the same occurrence  

as well as the injured informant and material eye witnesses, i.e.,  

3

Page 4

Crl.A. Nos.493-495/09 etc.   

P.Ws.12, 14, 15, 17, 19 and 24 also belong to the same village.  

The  genealogy  prepared  by  the  defence  and  shown  to  us,  

discloses that at least accused no.8-Maan Singh and his two sons  

accused nos.5 and 29 belong to the same larger family as that of  

the  four  deceased  and  the  injured  informant  Amar  Singh.  

Accused  no.8-Maan  Singh  happens  to  be  brother  of  deceased  

no.2-Bapu  Singh  and  deceased  no.4-Manohar  Singh  whereas  

deceased  no.1-Inder  Singh and deceased no.3-Nagu Singh are  

sons of deceased Manohar Singh.  Informant Amar Singh is son of  

deceased Bapu Singh.  The accused persons named in the FIR  

and chargesheeted by name never challenged their identification  

either before the police or before the Magistrate.  Nor there was  

any  cross-examination  of  the  witnesses  on  the  point  of  

identification  when  the  witnesses  in  their  depositions  have  

referred to the accused persons and the appellants by their name  

as well as village relationship.

4. According to the  Parcha Bayan of Amar Singh (P.W.15) he  

was at his house at around 06:45 p.m. of 10.09.2001 and at that  

time he heard cries  of  his  cousin Inder Singh (deceased no.1)  

4

Page 5

Crl.A. Nos.493-495/09 etc.   

from the side of a field known as ‘Patwari ka Khet’.  He came out  

of the house and saw his uncle Maan Singh (accused no.8) and 28  

other named accused running behind Inder Singh.   They were  

armed with sword, gun, country-made pistol,  lathi and  gandasi.  

They all together killed Inder Singh (deceased no.1).  Then they  

ran towards informant (P.W.15) and caused a sword blow at the  

wrist  of  his  right  hand.   On  his  cries,  his  father  Bapu  Singh  

(deceased no.2) came running to rescue the informant.  His uncle  

Maan Singh fired with his gun due to which Bapu Singh fell down  

and  died  in  the  khaal in  presence  of  everybody.   His  uncle  

Manohar  Singh  (deceased  no.4)  and  his  son  Nagu  Singh  

(deceased no.3) also came running to save them but the accused  

persons  assaulted  them  also  leading  to  their  death.   Many  

persons of the village were watching the incident.  The accused  

persons  had  registered  cases  of  theft  of  water  motor  against  

deceased Inder Singh and he had been recently released from  

the jail custody.  The accused had declared that since police did  

not do anything, now they would see Inder Singh.  There was an  

existing  dispute  over  land  between  the  informant  side  and  

5

Page 6

Crl.A. Nos.493-495/09 etc.   

accused Maan Singh and for these reasons Maan Singh and his  

associates,  armed  with  weapons  had  caused  death  of  four  

persons and had also caused injuries to the informant with an  

intention to kill him.  Informant claimed that he, his uncle Chen  

Singh  (P.W.17),  his  mother  (P.W.16)  and  his  wife  could  save  

themselves by hiding in the house.

5. During trial, 24 witnesses were examined on behalf of the  

prosecution and several documents were marked as Exhibits P-1  

to P-149.  Defence also examined four witnesses and exhibited  

21 documents marked as Exhibits D-1 to D-21.  As noted earlier,  

after trial the learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Jhalawar, Rajasthan,  

vide judgment dated 13.02.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No.123  

of 2002 (13/2002), convicted 24 out of 29 accused for various  

offences including offence under Section 302/149 of the IPC for  

which all were awarded rigorous imprisonment for life.  The trial  

court acquitted the appellants of charge under Section 120B of  

the  IPC.   The  appeals  preferred  by  the  appellants  before  the  

Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench were dismissed leading to  

confirmation of their conviction and sentence.

6

Page 7

Crl.A. Nos.493-495/09 etc.   

6. On  behalf  of  the  appellants,  Mr.  Basant,  learned  senior  

advocate first raised an issue of fact relating to identification of  

all appellants because none of the material witnesses, i.e., P.Ws  

12, 14, 15, 17, 19 and 24 have laid any specific claim in their  

examination-in-chief  that  they  can  identify  the  accused  

persons/appellants.  The submission advanced is that due to such  

lacuna,  the  appellants’  presence  and  participation  in  the  

occurrence is not established and hence they deserve acquittal.  

We find no merit in this contention in the light of salient facts  

noted  earlier  which  disclose  that  all  the  accused  

persons/appellants are named in the FIR.  They are co-villagers  

and  well  known  to  the  witnesses  and  challenge  to  their  

identification  by  name  etc.  was  never  raised  by  the  accused  

persons at any stage of either the investigation or the trial.  The  

presence of the appellants and their identification flows out of the  

fact  that  they  were  named  in  the  earliest  version  of  the  

occurrence  disclosed  in  the  FIR  and  have  been  subsequently  

named by several of the witnesses in course of the trial with clear  

allegation  that  they  were  present  and  participated  in  the  

7

Page 8

Crl.A. Nos.493-495/09 etc.   

occurrence  in  one  way  or  the  other  as  an  accused.   In  such  

factual background, the issue relating to identification raised on  

behalf of the appellants is found to be without any substance.

7. On behalf  of the appellants,  several  other issues of  facts  

were also raised with a view to criticize the prosecution case and  

persuade us to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the  

charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubts.  The  

general criticisms are that the six eye witnesses relied upon are  

interested and three of them, i.e., P.Ws 12, 14 and 24 are minors  

whose names were not disclosed in the FIR that they had also  

witnessed  the  occurrence.   It  was  also  submitted  that  the  

occurrence took place in open field and was allegedly witnessed  

by  large  number  of  villagers  but  no  independent  witness,  

unrelated  to  the  family  of  the  deceased  persons  has  been  

examined  and,  therefore,  prosecution  case  deserves  to  be  

rejected.  It  was also pointed out that the investigating officer  

could  not  recover  pellets  from  the  place  of  occurrence  and  

ballistic report was not made available to corroborate use of fire  

arms by some of the accused persons.  Our attention was also  

8

Page 9

Crl.A. Nos.493-495/09 etc.   

drawn to injuries sustained by some of the accused persons and  

it  was contended by learned senior  counsel  for  the appellants  

that in absence of any explanation for the injuries on the side of  

the  accused  persons,  the  prosecution  case  deserves  to  be  

rejected.  In support of this proposition, reliance was placed upon  

judgments of  this  Court  in the case of  Siri  Kishan & Ors. v.  

State  of  Haryana (2009)  12  SCC  757  and  in  the  case  of  

Lakshmi Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar (1976) 4 SCC 394.

8. Learned  senior  counsel  also  raised  a  serious  grievance  

against the trial court and the High Court judgment on the plea  

that  they  had failed  to  analyse the  roles  played by  individual  

accused  persons  which,  according  to  learned  counsel,  was  

necessary for fastening the charges under Section 302 and 307  

IPC  with  the  aid  of  Section  149  IPC.   The  substance  of  this  

contention was that unless allegations against individual accused  

are considered separately it will not be proper to hold that they  

were actually members of an unlawful assembly.  To highlight the  

ambit and scope of Section 149 IPC and related issues, reliance  

9

Page 10

Crl.A. Nos.493-495/09 etc.   

was placed by learned senior counsel on the following judgments  

of this Court :

(i) Kuldip  Yadav  &  Ors. v.  State  of  Bihar (2011) 5 SCC 324

(ii) Busi Koteswara Rao & Ors. v. State  of Andhra Pradesh (2012) 12 SCC 711

(iii) Khairuddin & Ors. v.  State of West  Bengal (2013) 5 SCC 753

9. Lastly  it  was  contended  on  behalf  of  appellants  that  

considering the fact that all the accused were co-villagers of the  

witnesses and well known from before, the naming of some of the  

appellants by only few of the witnesses and not all should have  

been treated to be a significant factor to grant acquittal on the  

basis  of  benefit  of  doubt.   Reliance  was  placed  upon  the  

judgment of this Court in the case of  Masalti etc. v.  State of  

Uttar Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 202 wherein it has been held that no  

doubt trustworthy evidence of a single witness may be enough to  

convict  accused  persons  in  appropriate  cases  but  where  a  

criminal court is dealing with evidence pertaining to an offence  

involving  large  number  of  offenders  and  a  large  number  of  

10

Page 11

Crl.A. Nos.493-495/09 etc.   

victims, it is usual to adopt the test of support by two or three or  

more witnesses if they give a consistent account of the incident.  

The court approved such a test after noticing that it may appear  

to  be  mechanical  but  its  use  in  appropriate  cases  cannot  be  

treated as irrational or unreasonable.  In order to assist this Court  

to  apply  such  a  test  in  the  present  case,  detailed  notes  and  

charts have also been furnished to indicate individual cases of  

appellants  in  respect  of  evidence  of  eye  witnesses  appearing  

against them, their weapon and alleged specific role.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant and  

also  learned  counsel  for  the  State  have  placed  reliance  upon  

judgments of trial court and the High Court and have submitted  

that the oral as well as documentary evidence has received due  

consideration by both the courts and in the facts of the case, no  

interference  is  required  with  the  concurrent  findings  of  guilt  

recorded against the appellants.  It was highlighted on behalf of  

prosecution that when large number of accused persons had run  

after  the  deceased  and  indulged  in  indiscriminate  assault  

resulting  into  death  of  four  persons  in  open field  and  serious  

11

Page 12

Crl.A. Nos.493-495/09 etc.   

injuries  to the informant,  the witnesses cannot be expected to  

notice, remember and depose the individual acts committed by  

different  accused  persons  vis-à-vis  the  five  victims.   It  was  

pointed out on behalf of prosecution that medical evidence and  

the injuries have been correctly  noted by the trial  court  which  

show  that  firearm  injuries  were  found  on  as  many  as  three  

deceased, namely, Nagu Singh from whose dead body two pellets  

were recovered, one from the wrist of the left arm and one from  

the stomach; deceased Inder Singh from whose back part of the  

body 12 pellets were recovered and deceased Bapu Singh who  

was found to have sustained a gun shot injury on the jaw from  

which 66 pellets were taken out along with a plastic circular cap.  

Pellets were also taken out from the brain.

11. Learned  counsel  for  the  informant  and  the  State  also  

submitted that no doubt innocent bystanders or witnesses cannot  

be and should not be included in the list of accused as members  

of unlawful assembly and the court is required to be vigilant and  

aware  of  all  the  facts  showing  involvement  of  the  accused  

persons -  from their conduct prior to as well as during and after  

12

Page 13

Crl.A. Nos.493-495/09 etc.   

the occurrence.  Incriminating conduct will vary from case to case  

and can be ascertained only in the peculiar facts of each case  

having  regard  to,  inter  alia,  nature  of  conduct,  overt  act  and  

possession of weapons,  if  any.   For this  purpose, according to  

prosecution, the courts below have analysed the ocular evidence  

in  detail  and  have  also  noticed recovery  of  different  weapons  

from the accused persons.  Therefore, as per their submission,  

the conviction of the appellants requires no interference.

12. On  going  through  the  entire  evidence  of  material  

witnesses, other materials and judgment of the courts below, we  

find that since the number of accused persons was quite large  

and they were bold and strong enough to cause four deaths in  

the open field in presence of large number of persons, it cannot  

be difficult to understand and appreciate as to why independent  

witnesses from the village who might have seen the occurrence,  

did not prefer to come out to support the prosecution.  But that  

will  not  take  away  from  the  worth  of  deposition  of  six  eye  

witnesses  when  they  have  given  a  consistent  account  of  the  

occurrence  which  was  disclosed  in  a  nutshell  soon  after  the  

13

Page 14

Crl.A. Nos.493-495/09 etc.   

occurrence in the FIR lodged by P.W.15 who was seriously and  

critically  injured  in  the  same occurrence  and  whose  presence  

cannot be doubted.  If, per chance, he would have been the sole  

witness,  even  then  it  may  have  been  possible  for  the  courts  

below  to  convict  the  accused  persons  on  his  testimony  after  

testing its veracity in the light of his earlier statement contained  

in the FIR.  In such a factual scenario, we find no reason to doubt  

the prosecution case if the I.O. failed to recover pellets from the  

open field which was the place of occurrence or if he could not  

obtain ballistic report.  The eye version account of the occurrence  

and  the  medical  evidence  showing  large  number  of  injuries  

including firearm injuries support each other.  On this issue, the  

discussion  and  findings  of  the  trial  court  against  the  accused  

persons is found to have sufficient merit.

13. The  criticism that  some of  the  accused  had  sustained  

injuries for which the prosecution has not offered any explanation  

has rightly been rejected by the trial court because there is no  

counter version or even a suggestion disclosing that any of the  

accused had received injuries in the same occurrence and at the  

14

Page 15

Crl.A. Nos.493-495/09 etc.   

same place.  None of the persons allegedly injured on the side of  

the defence have lodged any case disclosing where and under  

what circumstances they sustained the injuries.  In the facts of  

the case, in absence of any counter version and any plea of self-

defence, it would be hazardous to presume at the instance of the  

defence that the accused persons sustained the injuries in course  

of same occurrence and at the same place.  Only if  these two  

ingredients  were  established,  the  defence  would  have  been  

entitled to seek an explanation from the prosecution in respect of  

some injuries  on three of  the accused persons.   Their  injuries  

were neither fatal nor they caused any threat to life and that also  

reduces the burden upon the prosecution to explain injuries on  

the accused.  In view of above discussion, we are of the view that  

judgments  in  the  case  of  Siri  Kishan (supra)  and  Lakshmi  

Singh (supra) do not help the appellants.  In paragraph 12 of the  

judgment in the case of  Lakshmi Singh (supra) the court had  

found that in the circumstances of that case there could be no  

doubt that the accused must have received grievous injuries in  

course of the assault.  In the case at hand, the facts are different  

15

Page 16

Crl.A. Nos.493-495/09 etc.   

and  hence  the  prosecution  version  cannot  be  disbelieved  on  

account  of  some  injuries  allegedly  sustained  by  some  of  the  

accused,  namely,  Maan  Singh  (accused  no.8);  Ram  Prasad  

(accused no.28); and Bahadur Singh (accused no.29).

14. The  main  issue  that  now  requires  consideration  is  

whether the courts below have rightly applied Section 149 of the  

IPC against the appellants for convicting them for the death of  

four persons and for murderous assault on the informant.  The  

principle of law governing application of Section 149 IPC has been  

explained by this Court in many judgments including those cited  

by  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  appellants.   In  the  case  of  

Kuldip Yadav (supra), the law was stated in paragraph 39 in the  

following words :

“39.   It  is  not  the  intention  of  the  legislature  in  enacting  Section  149  to  render  every  member  of  unlawful  assembly  liable  to  punishment  for  every  offence committed by one or more of its members.  In  order to attract Section 149, it must be shown that the  incriminating act was done to accomplish the common  object of unlawful assembly and it must be within the  knowledge  of  other  members  as  one  likely  to  be  committed in prosecution of  the common object.   If  the members of the assembly knew or were aware of  the likelihood of a particular offence being committed  

16

Page 17

Crl.A. Nos.493-495/09 etc.   

in prosecution of the common object, they would be  liable for the same under Section 149 IPC.”

15. In  the case of  Busi Koteswara Rao (supra) the facts  

showed involvement of large number of persons and, therefore,  

while approving the view taken in the case of  Masalti (supra)  

this Court cautioned in paragraph 11 of the judgment that the  

courts should be cautious in cases of arson and murder where the  

number of accused is large, to rely upon the testimony of the  

witnesses  speaking  generally  without  specific  reference  to  the  

accused or the specific role played by them.

16. Reliance  placed  by  appellants  on  the  judgment  in  the  

case  of   Khairuddin (supra)  is  misplaced.   In  that  case,  as  

paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 disclose, overt act of assault was found  

proved against five appellants grouped together and hence their  

conviction was affirmed whereas against some others included in  

a  different  group  it  was  found  that  there  was  no  evidence  

showing that they were either present on the spot or participated  

in the occurrence.  In the case at hand, the finding on appraisal of  

evidence is different.

17

Page 18

Crl.A. Nos.493-495/09 etc.   

17. The ingredients of Section 149 IPC require presence of an  

unlawful assembly which is defined under Section 141 of the IPC  

as an assembly of five or more persons, if the common object of  

the persons composing that assembly is any of the five objects  

fully enunciated in Section 141 of IPC.  The third object is - “to  

commit any mischief or criminal trespass or other offence.”  The  

explanation to Section 141 clarifies that an assembly which was  

not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an  

unlawful assembly.  As per Section 149, even if any one member  

of an unlawful assembly commits an offence in prosecution of the  

common object of that assembly, every person who at the time of  

committing  of  that  offence  was  a  member  of  the  unlawful  

assembly is guilty of that offence.

18. Since  it  was  vehemently  contended  that  courts  below  

have not applied their mind as to whether the appellants were  

members of an unlawful assembly or not, it is our duty to remind  

ourselves of the law on the subject.  It is settled law, as held in  

the case of  Roy Fernandes v.  State of Goa & Ors. (2012) 3  

SCC 221, that to determine the existence of common object, the  

18

Page 19

Crl.A. Nos.493-495/09 etc.   

court is required to see the circumstances in which the incident  

had taken place, the conduct of members of unlawful assembly  

as well as the weapon of offence they carried or used on the spot.  

It is also established law, as held in the case of Ramchandran &  

Ors. v. State of Kerala (2011) 9 SCC 257, that common object  

may  form  on  spur  of  the  moment.   Prior  concert  by  way  of  

meeting of members of unlawful assembly is not necessary.

19. In that view of settled law, the facts of the present case  

as alleged in the FIR and as proved in the court leave no manner  

of doubt that the group of persons who chased deceased no.1-

Inder  Singh  and  caused  his  death  and  thereafter  chased,  

surrounded  and  caused  death  of  three  more  persons  besides  

causing  grievous  injuries  to  the  informant-Amar  Singh  was  an  

assembly  of  five  or  more  persons  rightfully  deserving  to  be  

designated  as  an  unlawful  assembly  because  by  its  action  it  

showed that  its  common object  was  to  commit  offence.   The  

subsequent acts clearly show that the unlawful assembly carried  

out its common object of committing serious offence of murder of  

four persons and grievous injuries to the informant.

19

Page 20

Crl.A. Nos.493-495/09 etc.   

20. This  Court,  therefore,  finds  that  the  courts  below  

committed  no  error  in  applying  Section  149  of  the  IPC  and  

convicting  the members of  the unlawful  assembly for offences  

under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC (with the aid of Section  

149 IPC).  Some argument was advanced on there being lack of  

any clear motive but that is not at all necessary or material when  

the  offences  have  been proved  by clear  and cogent  evidence  

including eye-witnesses.

21. So far as the principle of caution as enunciated in the  

case  of  Masalti (supra)  is  concerned,  we  find  ourselves  in  

agreement  with  the  submission  advanced  by  learned  senior  

counsel  Mr.  Basant  that  in  the  peculiar  facts  of  the case,  the  

courts  below  should  have  further  decided  as  to  how  much  

corroboration  was  required  for  accepting  the  presence  and  

participation of  individual  accused person.   The informant  had  

though  claimed presence  of  29  persons  but  subsequently  five  

were acquitted by the trial court and one was acquitted by the  

High Court.  On this issue, on going through the charts disclosing  

number  of  witnesses  who  have  deposed  against  individual  

20

Page 21

Crl.A. Nos.493-495/09 etc.   

appellants  to  show  their  presence,  participation,  weapon  and  

overt  act,  if  any,  we find that  the test  approved in  Masalti’s  

case (supra) and subsequently followed in several other cases  

including the case of Busi Koteswara Rao (supra) needs to be  

followed in this case also.  In the latter judgment in paragraph 13  

the law on the subject has been expounded in very clear terms :  

“13. It is clear that when a criminal court has to deal  with  evidence  pertaining  to  the  commission  of  an  offence involving a large number of offenders and a  large number of victims, the normal test is that the  conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by  two or more witnesses who give a consistent account  of the incident in question.”

22. Since  the  accused  persons  and  the  6  material  eye  

witnesses in this case are co-villagers, it is expected that at least  

three  witnesses  should  be  in  a  position  to  name  individual  

accused persons for sustaining his conviction.  Applying that test,  

it is found that accused no.9-Bhagwan Singh, son of Prabhu Lal;  

accused  no.18-Suresh  Kumar,  son  of  Ram  Dhakad;  accused  

no.20-Kanhi  Ram,  son  of  Prabhu  Lal;  accused  no.27-Prahlad  

Singh, son of Nathu Lal; and accused no.28-Ram Prasad, son of  

21

Page 22

Crl.A. Nos.493-495/09 etc.   

Bheru Lal deserve to be acquitted by granting benefit of doubt.  

This benefit of doubt arises in their favour because although they  

have been named specifically  by informant  P.W.15 as persons  

who  were  members  of  the  unlawful  assembly  and  who  

participated in assault but such claim of the informant has not  

been supported by more than one witness.  In other words, there  

is no clear and cogent evidence of three witnesses against the  

aforesaid accused persons.  So far as accused no.28-Ram Prasad  

is concerned, no doubt his name has been taken by P.W.12 and  

P.W.24 also but they have not specified as to whether it was Ram  

Prasad, son of Bheru Lal or another accused by the same name,  

i.e. accused no.25-Ram Prasad, son of Jeth Ram.

23. The appeals preferred by the aforesaid five appellants,  

namely, Bhagwan Singh, son of Prabhu Lal (appellant no.3 in Crl.  

Appeal No.1239 of 2009);  Suresh Kumar,  son of Ram Dhakad  

(appellant no.3 in Crl. Appeal No.493 of 2009);  Kanhi Ram, son of  

Prabhu  Lal  (appellant  no.4  in  Crl.  Appeal  No.1239  of  2009);  

Prahlad  Singh,  son  of  Nathu Lal  (sole  appellant  in  Crl.  Appeal  

No.1241 of 2009); and Ram Prasad, son of Bheru Lal (appellant  

22

Page 23

Crl.A. Nos.493-495/09 etc.   

no.4  in  Crl.  Appeal  No.493  of  2009)  are  allowed.   They  are  

granted benefit of doubt and acquitted of all the charges.  The  

appeals of remaining 16 appellants are dismissed.  If on bail, their  

bail  bonds  shall  stand  cancelled  and  they  shall  be  taken  into  

custody  forthwith  to  serve  out  the  remaining  sentence  in  

accordance with law.  

     ……………………………….J.       [M.Y. EQBAL]

      ………………………………..J.                  [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]

New Delhi. January 06, 2015.

23