Holding

Suspicion, however strong, is insufficient to supplant legal proof; the evidence was unreliable and the acquittals stand.

Summary

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's order acquitting 24 of the 41 accused in a mass‑murder case that left 13 victims dead. The prosecution alleged a conspiracy by the accused to murder the victims during a sugar‑cane cutting, relying heavily on the testimony of several ocular witnesses, especially the complainant (PW‑1) and two injured witnesses (PW‑3 and PW‑24). The Supreme Court held that the evidence was ambulatory, vacillating and riddled with infirmities, and that the complainant had deliberately implicated three accused (A‑1, A‑2, A‑27) who were in prison at the time of the incident. The Court emphasized that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legal proof beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court confirmed the High Court’s judgment, dismissing the State’s appeal and upholding the acquittals, while noting that only accused A‑36 (Rambali) was properly convicted.

Issues considered

The adequacy and credibility of the prosecution's evidence, particularly the ocular witnesses' testimony.
Whether suspicion alone can substitute for proof of guilt under the Indian Penal Code.
Whether the accused A‑1, A‑2 and A‑27 could be convicted despite being in prison at the time of the alleged offence.
Whether the High Court erred in acquitting the accused under Section 378 of the CrPC.

Legislation cited

Arms Acts. 27
Code of Criminal Procedures. 107, s. 378, s. 378(3), s. 87, s. 88
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 109, s. 120, s. 120B, s. 148, s. 149, s. 201, s. 27, s. 302, s. 307, s. 427, s. 435

Subjects

criminal lawacquittalspecial leave petitionevidencesuspicionreasonable doubtconspiracymurderIPCdeath penaltyappellate jurisdictionSection 378 CrPCocular witnessesfalse implication

Judgment

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
7 v.
A
MOTI RAM AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

MAY 2, 1990

[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA B
REDDY, JJ.]
r
Constitution of India-Article 136-Appeal by special leave by
State against acquittal by High Court-Held evidence ambulatory and
vacillating-Suffering from insurmountable infirmities and probabili-
ties-Suspicion however strong-Not sufficient to take place of legal
c
" proof and warrant finding of guilt against accused.

This appeal has been preferred by the State against an order of
(
acquittal recorded by the High Court in respect of the accused respon-
dent. According to the prosecution there were two rival factions in
village Deotaha (U.P.), one led by the accused-respondents and the D
other by the deceased victims. There existed bitter enimity between the
two factions, one faction was out to take the blood of another and due to
this deep-rooted animosity Accused I, 2 and 27 batched a conspiracy
with some other associates to murder Prabhu Nath and his men on
I 14.1.1974, on which date they were scheduled to cut the standing sugar
~ cane in Plot l'los. 736 and 737. It is alleged by the prosecution that in E
pursuance of this conspiracy, Accused 3 deposited his licensed gun with
the arms dealer on 12.1.1974 with a view to screen himself from any
prospective accusation and Accused I, 2 and 27 in o.rder to set up a plea
of alibi connived with Accused 40, Travelling Ticket Examiner in the
Railways, travelled without ticket, got themselves checked and sen-
tenced to imprisonment by the railway magistrate on 13.1,1974 and F
were incareerated in the Gorakhpur jail till 18.1.1974. According to the
prosecution on 14.1.1974, when the deceased 13 persons and others
went for cutting the sugar cane crops raised by one of the deceased. At
about I p.m. by which time the cut crop was being loaded in the tractor
trolley brought by the deceased persons, Accused persons with their
men 80 to 90 in number attacked them with spears, lathis and pharsas G
and started firing indiscriminately. The deceased persons and others
ran with a view to save their lives; some hid themselves behind the
'- tractor and trolley, and others ran towards north and south directions.
As a result of the attack PWs 3 and 24 received injuries and 13 persons
succumbed to their injuries instantaneously. It is alleged by the pro-
seciltion that d11ring the course of the occurrence, the deceased Prabhu H

939
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

A
Nath who had a gun rrred at the accused party in self-defence and\injured
Accused 36, Rambali. Thereafter Accused 10 and 16 covered the dead
bodies with sugar cane leaves and sprinkled diesel oil by taking it from
\
the tractor and set fire to the bodies. Thereafter the accused left the
scene of occurrence; accused 32 carried away the guu of the deceased
Prabhu Nath. P.W. I thereupon lodged the F.I.R. and the police took
B up the investigation. After completing the investigation, P.W. 38 laid
the chargesheet In 4 batches which gave rise to 4 different sessions trials '7'
which were disposed of by a common judgment by the Sessions Judge.
All the accused pleaded not guilty and denied their complicity with the
offence. Accused 36, Rambali admitted his presence and stated that the
sugar-cane belonged to one Phunni and not to Tirjugi and his men and ~
while Phunni and his men were cutting the crops, the deceased Prabhu
c Nath and other deceased persons attempted to forcibly take away the
crops and during the course of such attempt, Phunni and his men
attacked the deceased party and that he was shot by the deceased
Prabhu Nath when he entreated that the sugar cane should not be taken
"
away. Accused 1, 2 and 27 denied the charge of conspiracy contending
D that they were in prison on the date of occurrence consequent upon
their conviction by the railway magistrate.

The learned Sessions Judge acquitted 25 accused persons out of
the total of 41 accused, viz., 4-6, 11-14, 17-22, 24-26, 28-32, 35 and 39-41 .
~
finding them not guilty of any of the charges and convicted the remain- '
E. ing 16 accused for various offences and passed sentences of the prison-
ment in respect of each accused.

It may be mentioned that Accused Nos. 10 and 16 were convicted
under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and each of them was
sentenced to death, besides their conviction under Section 307 I.P.C.
F
All t]ie convicted accused filed Criminal appeals in the High
Court. The reference mac:le by the Trial Court for conimnation of the
sentence of death imposed on A-10 and A-16 was heard as Referred
Case No. 31 of 1976. The State preferred appeal under Section 378
Cr.P.C. against the acquittal of all the 24 acquitted persons. In the case
G of A-40, the High Court did not grant leave as required under Section
378(3), Cr.P.C. The High Court disposed of all the appeals inclusive of
the State Appeal and the Referred Case by the common judgment .•
whereby all the criminal appeals preferred by the convicted accused
except the appeal preferred by Rambali (A-36) was allowed and their
sentences were set aside. The State Appeal was dismissed and the refer-
H red case in view of the acquittal of the accused was rejected. Hence this
STAIB OF U.P. v. MOT! RAM 941

7 appeal by the State. The contention of the State is that the acquittal of
the accused is not proper and unwarranted on. the basis Of the evidence
led in the case.
A

Dismissing the appeals, this Court,

HELD: When viewed from any angle, the reasons assigned by the B
High Court for disbelieving the testimony of all the ocular witnesses are
not unreasonable. The evidence is ambulatory and vasulating besides
suffering from insurmountable inf11111ities and improbabilities. The
totality of the evidence is unworthy of the credence when examined by
the standard of yardsticks of credibility. [956G I

There is a deliberate false implication of the Accused 1, 2 and 27
c
to whom overtacts are attributed in Ex. Ka-1. In fact, the High Court
has gone in great depth into the facts and circumstances of the case and
rightly concluded that the prosecution has miserably failed in establish·
ing the guilt of the accused except A-36. [956H: 957A)
D
Suspicion by itself however strong it may be is not sufficient to
take the place of legal proof and warrant a fmding of guilt of these three
accused. [957C]

The entire evidence is nothing but a coloured version with con-
cocted story and exaggerated account mixed with falsehood and that the E
prosecution has miserably failed to make out the charges against all or
any of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt except Rambali (A-36)
who himself admitted his presence at the scene. [957H; 958A)

No doubt it is true that this heinons offence is diabolical in concep-
t' tion and executed in gruesome and ghastly manoer. It is shocking that F
I

~ 13 persons have been done away with in a broad day light in the course
of the same transaction. Nonetheless the Court when satisfied that the
evidence adduced by the prosecution is not only unworthy of credence,
but also manifestly and inextricably mixed up with falsehood canoot be
carried away merely on the fact of multiplicity Of victims and on the
bias of speculations and suppositions in the confused stream of facts. G
The High Court has apprised the evidence in the proper perspective and
arrived at a correct conclusion which is neither perverse nor
unreasonable. [958D-E)

Ba/aka Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, [1975] 4 SCC 511, refer-
~~ H
942 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal (
A Nos. 517-523of 1978. \

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.2.1977 of the Allaha-
bad High Court in Cr!. A. Nos. 1143, Referred No. 31 of 1976 con-
nected with Crl. A. Nos. 1132, 1133, 1156, 1158 of 1976 & Govt.
B Appeal No. 2129 of 1976.

Prithvi Raj, Dalveer Bhandari and Prashant Choudhary for the 'r
Appellant.

R.L. Kohli, H.K. Puri and C.P. Lal (NP) for the Respondents. )
c Yogeshwar Prasad, Ms. Rachna Gupta and P.K. Bajaj for the
Complainant.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
"
D S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. It is a very tragic and pathetic
case-tragic in the sense that 13 persons have been massacred in a
gruesome and horrendous manner and pathetic in the sense that the
culprits burnt the victims of this barbaric act by covering with sugar-
cane leaves and sprinkling with diesel oil. At the same time, we are
deeply distressed and pained to note that three of the accused persons ~
E i.e. A·l, A-2 and A-27, who were in prison on the date of occurrence
are falsely implicated as having taken part in the occurrence and the
main witness, Nitya Nand (PW-1) has made a deliberate and suborn
perjury by naming these three accused persons even in the earliest
complaint (Ex. Ka-1) with an oblique motive of obtaining conviction
of these accused also.
F
Even at the threshold, we would like to point out that as the
appellant has not furnished the correct list of the array of the accused
with reference to each of the four sessions trials in a chronological
manner, we with great difficulty have culled out the names of the
accused persons and the sessions trial case numbers from the body of
G the judgment of the Trial Court and appended a list of the names of
the accused as Annexme 'A' to this judgment so that we may not
experience any difficulty in understanding and appreciating the pro- ,•
secution case.

There were 41 accused in total who took their trial in sessions
H trial case Nos. A-119, A-160, A-265174 and A-27 /75 as indicated by us
STATE OF U.P. v. MOTi RAM [PANDIAN, J.] 943
•
to the foot-note to Annexure 'A'. The Trial Court convicted 16
A
accused under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the
Arms Act and acquitted the remaining 25 accused. In this judgment,
we are referring to the accused persons in the order, as arrayed in
Annexure 'A'.

Indisputably, 13 persons ranging between 22-25 years of age B
were done away with in the occurrence. Two other persons, namely,
Jama (PW-3) and Balai (PW-24) escaped with injuries. Of the
deceased persons, one by name Kedar belonged to a village called
Baluahi, whereas me rest or the deceased persons belonged to a village
- 4( called Deotaha, to which village the injured persons belong. The
deceased persons are either the members of the family or associates of
the complainant, Nitya Nand (PW-1) whose father was one among the c
13 deceased persons. Of the accused, sotne are inter-related and the
rest are associates.

The scene of occurrence lies within the limits of Nebua
Naurangia Police Station in the District of Deoria in the state of U.P. D
At a distance of 10 miles to the west of this police station, there is a
village known as Bali. A few furlongs to south of Bali, the village
Deotaha is situated. The agricultural area of the village Bali extends
up to some distance to the west of village Deotaha. About six furlongs
to the west of village Deotaha, there are two contiguous plots bearing
Nos. 736 and 737 without any dividing line. The occurrence in question E
took place in the very same plots.

- There were two rival factions in the village Deotaha-in that the
deceased persons, their relations and associates formed one faction
-r
I
and the accused formed the rival faction. There was deep rooted
enmity and simmering feelings between the two groups due to the F
\ following incidents. ·

1. In a keenly contested Pradhanship election of the village-
Deotaha, the first accused became successful.

2. One of the deceased Prabhu Nath filed a suit as against A-27 G
(Jangi) for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,000 and the suit was
decreed on A-27's admission. At the time of the occurrence, the
execution proceeding in pursuance of the decree was pending. In
that suit, Kedar one of the deceased was a witness supporting the
cause of Prabhu Nath .
...
H
3. On 15.5.1973, the first accused and some others attacked one
c
944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1990] 2 S.C.R.

A Rajeshwar Tiwari during the course of which one Saheb belong-
ing to the accused party was murdered. The members of both the
groups were arrested and sent to jail in connection with that
occurrence.

4. After their release in the above case, they started damaging
B
each other's crops. This led to the initiation of a security pro-
ceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In 'y
that the party of the first accused was bound over.

5. In September 1973, another security proceeding was initiated
under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein ) _
c , A-1, A-27 and 54 others belonging to A-l's party were bound
over.

Due to. the above consecutive incidents, these two rival factions
were nursing and nurturing their ill feelings which was gaining
momentum day by day, ultimately culminating into the occurrence in
D
question. We shall now give a brief note of the prosecution case.

On account of the deep-rooted animosity between the parties,
the first two accused and Accused No. 27 hatched a conspiracy with
some of their associates to murder Prabhu Nath and his men on ~
14.1.1974 when they were expected to be engaged for cutting the \
E
standing sugar cane in· plot Nos. 736 and 737. With an intention of
screening himself from any prospective accusation the third accused
depo~ited his licensed gun on 12.1.1974 with an arms dealer (PW-28)
at Gorakhpur. On the same day, namely, on 12.1.1974 at about noon -
accused Nos. 1, 2 and 27 in order to create evidence of their alibi
F entered into an agreement with one S.D. Dubey, who was at that time ·r ~
working in the Railways as Travelling Ticket Examiner (T.T.E.) and
who is shown as Accused No. 40 in Annexure 'A' to do an illegal act, ·.I
to wit, to have the deceased persons murdered by their associates oa
14.1.1974. In pursuance of this conspiracy these three accused (1, 2
and 27) travelled without tickets by 2 Dn. Mail Train running between
Khora Bhar and Gauri Bazar which stations lie ·on Gorakhpur-Bhatni
G line. As these three accused who travelled as ticketless passengers did
not pay the charges due from them to the TfE (Accused No. 40), they
as pre-planned, were apprehended and produced before the Railway ....___
Magistrate on 13.1.1974 who convicted them and sentenced them to
imprisonment till 18.1.1974. Thus these 3 accused were incarcerated in
the Gorakhpur jail till 18.1.1974.
H
STATE OF U.P. v. MOTi RAM [PANDIAN, J.[ 945

)_ The occurrence in question took place in the afternoon of
14.1.1974. On the day of occurrence at about 10.00 A.M. all the 13
deceased persons accompanied by two injured persons PWs 3 and 24
A

and few others went to plot Nos. 736 and 737 for cutting the sugar cane
crops raised by one of the deceased-namely Trijugi and his family
members. The deceased persons had also taken a tractor with the
trolley attached to it for removing the sugar canes. By about 1.00 P.M. B
the entire cane crops had been cut. Some bundles of the sugar canes
"I'' already cut had been loaded on the trolley. At this point of time, about
80-90 persons inclusive of these accused persons .armed with lethal
weapons such as fire-arms, spears, lathis and pharsas surrounded the
spot from 3 directions, namely, north, east and west and after nearing
"" the field started firing shots indiscriminately and "lilso attacked th.e
prosecution party with pharsas, spears and lathis. All those persons
c
who were cutting the sugar c"ne crops got panicky and started runnin,g
~ helter-skelter. These unfortunate 13 deceased persons ran towards
north evidently to save their lives by taking positions behind the trolley
and the tractor which were parked just north of the place of occur-
rence. PWs 3 and 24 and some others ran towards south. While so D
running PWs 3 and 24 received injuries. But the other witnesses,
namely, Nitya Nand (PW. 1), Om Prakash (PW. 6), Smt. Mala (PW.
11) and Smt. Chandgudi (PW. 12) escaped unhurt. They all hid
themselves in the fields of Hakim and Paras which lie to the south of
f the place of occurrence and witnessed the entire orgy of violence
therefrom. The culprits chased these 13 deceased persons like hunters E
chasing the fleeing beasts and ruthlessly and indiscriminately attacked
them. All the 13 persons instantaneously succumbed to their injuries.
The dead bodies were found lying scattered around the tractor and
trolley providing a gory sight. During the course of the occurrence, it is
.,,.. said that one of the deceased Prabhu Nath who had a gun fired at the
accused party in self-defence and injured Rambali (Accused No. 36). F
Accused Nos. 10 and 16 covered the dead bodies with sugar cane
\ leaves apd sprinkled diesel oil taken out from the tractor and set fire
to. After committing this heinous crime, all the culprits left the scene
of occurrence. While leaving the scene, Accused No. 32 carried away
the gun of the deceased Prabhu Nath. The entire occurrence was over
within an hour. G

After the accused persons had left the scene, PW-1 went to the
?'-- police station which is at a distance of 10 miles from the scene and
presented a written complaint (Ex. Ka. 1) which was registered at
about 2.45 P.M. The 'chik report' (The First Information Report) is
Ex. Ka. 51 the copy of which is Ex. Ka. 52. The Station House Officer H
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1990] 2 S.C.R. f
(PW-43) took up investigation and proceeded to the scene accom- \ .
A panied by his head constable and other constables, after giving instruc- ·
tion to PW-17 to proceed to the scene by arranging some .vehicles.
PW-43 reached the scene of occurrence at 4.00 P.M. and examined
PWs 3, 24 and others and sent the injured witnesses for medical exami-
nation. Then PW-43 held inquest over the dead bodies and thereafter
B sent the dead bodies for post-mortem examination. After despatching
the dead bodies PW-43 inspected the scene of occurrence and found
marks of pellets on all sides of the trolley and ash of burnt leaves lying
around the· trolley. The wheels of the trolley were also found burnt.
Two live cartridges and several used and fired cartridges of 12 bore
gun together with the pellets and some burnt clothes were found by the
investigating officer on the spot. Patches of blood were found at diffe-
c rent places. PW-4, the Medical Officer examined the injured witnesses
and found on their person punctured wounds besides abrasions. PW-3
had two gun shot wounds. The Doctor had noted the injuries. in
Exhibits Ka-5 and Ka-6. The Medical Officers, namely PWs 2, 9, 10
and 46 conducted necroscopy on the dead bodies and noted various
D kinds of injuries such as incised wounds, lacerated injuries, contusions
and gun shot wounds etc. There was superficial bum on the dead
bodies indicating that the dead bodies were set fire to. PW-43 searc.hed
for the accused mentioned in the F.I.R., but none was available. Then
he took proceedings under Sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (old). He arrested Accused No. 39 on 16.1.1974 and seized
E his licensed gun. Accused Nos. 3 and 16 were arrested in the house of
Accused No. 38. A rifle (Ex. 11) and a gun (Ex. 12) were seized by
PW-43 from the house of Accused No. 38. On 16.1.1974, the sub-
Inspector, PW-43 was suspended. Thereafter the investigation was
taken up by the Circle Inspector of Police on 17.1.1974. Subsequently,
on 21.1.1974 the investigation was entrusted to the C.I.D. Branch.
F PW-38, an Inspector of that branch took up further investigation ..
During the investigation he came to know that Rambali (Accused No.
36) was admitted to Gorakhpur Hospital, but slipped away from the
hospital on 18.1.1974. PW-38 collected evidence about the arrest of
Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 27 by the T.T.E. while the latter found these
three accused travelling without tickets on 12.1.1974. He sent the two
G cartridges recovered from the place of occurrence to the ballistic
expert, who opined that the same should haye been fired by rifle
(Ex. 11). Some of the accused surrendered before the court on. diffe-
rent dates. After completing the investigation, PW-38 laid the charge-
sheet in 4 batches which gave rise to 4 different sessions trials which
were disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge by this impugned com-
H mon judgment.
STATE OF U.P. v. MOTi RAM [PANDIA1', -J.J 947

All the accused pleaded not guilty and denied their complicity
) A
·with the offence in question. Rambali (Accused No. 36) admitted his
··- presence and stated that the sugar cane crops belonged to one Phunni
and not to Tirjugi and his relations and that while Phunni and his men
were cutting the sugar cane crops, the deceased Prabhu Nath and the
other deceased persons attempted to forcibly taking away the crops
and during the course of such attempt, Phunni and his men attacked B
the deceased party and that he was shot by the deceased Prabhu Nath
~ when he entreated that the sugar cane crops of Phunni should not be
taken away. Accused nos. 1, 2 and 27 denied the charge of conspiracy
and stated that they were in prison on the date of occurrence conse-
quent upon their conviction recorded by the Railway Magistrate for
• A(. their ticketless travelling.
c
The prosecution in all examined 53 witnesses and filed number of
)\. documents. The accused examined DWs 1-7. Of the witnesses
·examined by the prosecution, PWs 1, 3, 6, 11, 12, 20 and 24 are ocular
witnesses. It may be mentioned here that PW-20 has been treated as
hostile as he has not supported the prosecution case. Of these witnes- D
ses, PWs 3 and 24 were injured witnesses. One Ganga Prasad Pantle
mentioned as an eye witness in the F .LR. was examined as a court
witness (C.W. 1) and he did not support the prosecution version. The
L learned Trial Judge believing the plea of accused Nagendra alias Tara
r (A.4) on the basis of the evidence of DW. 1 (Dr. Krishna Swarup)
found this accused as having not participated in the occurrence. How- E
ever, he spurned the plea of defence put forth by rest of the accused.

The learned Sessions Judge for the discussions made in his judg-
ment acquitted 25 accused persons out of the total of 41 accused,
namely, 4-6, 11-14, 17-22, 24-26, 28-32, 35, 39-41 finding them not
guilty of any of the charges and convicted the rest of the 16 accused F
under various charges and sentenced them as hereunder:

Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 27 were sentenced to life imprisonment
under Section 302 read with Sections 109 and 120 (B) !PC and Accused
Nos. 3, 7, 8, 15, 23, 33, 34, 36 and 37 were convicted under Section 302
read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and G
in addition to that, these 9 accused were convicted under Section 307
read with Section 149 IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years. Accused. No. 9 was
convicted under Section 302 (simpliciter) and sentenced to life impri-
sonment and convicted under Section 307 (simpliciter) and sentenced
to 5 years rigorous imprisonment. In addition to that, A. 9 was con- H
948 SUPREME COURT. REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

victed under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years and also under Section 147 for
a period of one year.

Acsused Nos. 10 and 16 were convicted under Section 302 read
with Section 149 IPC and each of them was sentenced to the extreme
B penalty of law, namely, death. These two accused A. 10 and A. 16
were also convicted under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC and
each of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5
years.

Accused Nos. 3, 7, 8, 10, 15, 16, 23, 33, 34, 36 and 37 were >
convicted under Section 148 IPC and each of them was sentenced to
c undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and half years.
Apart from this, all the convicted accused persons except Accused ~
Nos. 1, 2, 27 and 38 were convicted under Section 201 read with
Section 149 IPC and each of them was sentenced to rigorous imprison-
ment for a period of 4 years. Added to that, all these accused excepting
D the above four were convicted under Sections 435 and 427, IPC and
sentenced each one of the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one_year under each of these two char~s. Accused No. 37 was
also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
~
E All the convicted accused filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 1132, 1133,
1143, 1156, 1157 and 1158 of 1976. The reference made by the Trial
Court for confirmation of the sentence of death imposed on A. 10 and
A. 16 was heard as a Referred case No. 31of1976. The State prefer-
red an appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. against the acquittal of all
the 24 acquitted persons. It may be mentioned at this juncture that the .-,.-
F High Court did not grant leave as required under Section 378(3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure to entertain an appeal against the acquit; I
ta! of S.D. Dubey (A. 40). The High Court disposed of these appeals
inclusive. of the State appeal and the Referred case by the common
impugned judgment dated 17 .2.1977, allowing all the criminal appeals
preferred by all the convicted accused except the appeal preferred by
G Rambali (A. 36) and setting aside the convictions and the sentences of
those whose appeals were allowed. The State appeal was dismissed.
The referred case was rejected consequent upon the acquittal of A. 10
and A. 16.
-•,
The State on being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of
H the High Court, has preferred as many as seven criminal appeals as
STATE OF U.P. v. MOTi RAM [PANDIAN, J.J 949

detailed in the table given below: ,
A
~ --

SL No. Criminal Appeal No. The Accused concerned.

1. 517 /78 A. 10 and A. 16
B
2. 518/78 A.38
---( 3. 519/78 A. 1, A.2 & A.27
4. 520/78 A.3, A. 7, A.8, A.9, A.15,
A.23&A.33.

- l( 5.

6.
521/78
522/78
A.37
A.34&A.36
c
).,,, 7. 523/78 A.4-6. A. 11-14, A. 17-22,
A.24-26, A.28-32, A.35
A.39&A.41
D
After the grant of special leave, S.D. Dubey, Respondent No. 25
in Criminal Appeal No. 523/78 (Accused No. 40 in the Annexure 'A'
to this judgment) filed a petition for rectification in Miscellaneous
Petition No. 210/79 praying to recall the leave granted and the non-
-( bailable warrant issued against him on the ground that the lligh·Conrt
did not grant leave to the State for preferring an appeal against his E
order of acquittal. This Court by order dated 23.1.1979 deleted the
name of S.D. Dubey from the array of the respondents in Criminal

- Appeal No. 523/78 and revoked the special leave granted so far as he
was concerned and also discharged the unbailable warrant issued
against him. The result is that there is no appeal against A. 40.
- ---fI
F
It seems that the complainant in all these appeals has filed Crimi-
nal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 3621-3627 of 1989 for impleading him
as a party. Natarajan, J. (as he then was) by an order dated 14.9.1989
passed an order, "The counsel for the complainant may be heard at the
time of hearing of the appeal." Mr. Prithvi Raj, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. Dalveer Bhandari and another appeared on behalf of the G
appellant/state. Mr. R.L. Kohli, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. H.K.
Puri and another appeared on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Yogesh-
war Prasad, Sr. Advocate assisted by two advocates appeared on
behalf of the complainant. Mr. Prithvi Raj after taking us very
meticulously through the judgment of the Trial Court as well as of the
High Court and the evidence of some of the witnesses presented a very H
950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

A
comprehensive and detailed analysis of the case with the circumstances.
surrounding it and made the following submissions:

1. The High Court has erroneously set aside the convictions
recorded by the Trial Court without adverting to the intrinsic
c
value of the evidence of the eye witnesses who speaks about the
B motive as well the actual occurrence in question, which took
place in the broad day light of 14.1.1974.

2. There ii; abundant and overwhelming evidence both oral and
documentary conclusively establishing the long standing and

c
deep rooted animosity for the accused persons to brutally attack
the prosecution party. )• -
3. The High Court is not justified in rejecting the testimony of
the ocular witnesses especially of PWs 3 and 24, who were
injured and whose presence at the scene of occurrence cannot be
doubted, merely on the ground that they were all partisan
D witnesses.

4. The nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased persons
as well by PWs 3 and 24 unmistakenably corroborate the evi-
dence of the eye witnesses that all the victims have been indis-
criminately and ruthlessly attacked with deadly weapons such as ·\
fire-arms, spears, pharsas, lathis etc.

5. Both the Trial Court and the High Court without appreciating
the evidence adduced as against the acquitted persons concerned
in Criminal Appeal No. 523/78 has wrongly recorded the order of
acquittal which is liable to be set aside.
F
Before entering into a detaiied discussion of the oral and
documentary evidence, we may point out certain incontrovertible
facts. The time of occurrence, the place of occurrence and the manner
of attack are all not in dispute. It seems that the learned Trial Judge
himself had made a local inspection and visited the place of occurrence
G on 11.4.76 and he was satisfied with the evidence regarding the
topography of the scene.

So far as the motive is concerned, we have clearly stated in the
narrative portion of the judgment that the prosecution party and the
accused party were on war path on account of a series of incidents over
H a considerable length of time. The evidence-both oral and docu-
STATE OF .U.P. '· MOT! RAM [PANDIAN, J.] 951

' mentary-demonstrably establish that each one was out for the blood
of another. The very fact that 13 persons have been done away with by A
an inhuman, archaic and drastic mode of execution indicates that the
culprits whoever they might have been should have been fomenting
their hatred and pre-planned to perpetuate this heinous crime on that
particular day. According to the prosecution, the perpetrators of the
crime were numbering between 80 to 90. When the victims and the B
'"I'. witnesses started running away apprehending imminent danger to their
lives, they were chased by the perpetrators of the crime and attacked
ruthlessly by deadly weapons including fire-arms. The prosecution
case is that except the father of PW-I, Prabhu Nath who was armed
with a gun others were armless. PW-I speaks about the entire motive
.:. for the occurrence. On a careful analysis of the evidence, we have no
reservation in holding that there was bitter animosity between the c
prosecution and accused parties and as such there was sufficient
\. motive on the part of the accused party to attack the prosecution
party. But at the same time, one should not lose sight of the fact that
the prosecution party which was also entertaining the same amount of
animosity against the accused party had sufficient motive to implicate D
all the leading persons of the accused party with the offence in ques-
tion. As repeatedly said, motive is a double edged weapon and that it
could be made use of by either party to wield that weapon of motive
against each other. Therefore, the key question for consideration is
f whether the prosecution has convincingly and satisfactorily established
guilt of all or any of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by letting E
in reliable and cogent evidence .
.,
- Regarding the conspiracy that is said to have been hatched on
12.1.74 among A. I, A.2 and A.27 with three others-A.28, A.29 and
A.34 we have to scrutinise the evidence of PWs 5, 8, 15 and DW 5. The
- -r Trial Court in its judgment has found A. I, A.2 and A.27 guilty under F
Sections 302 read with 109 and read with 120(B) and sentenced them

' for life, though has not placed much reliance on the evidence of PWs 8
and 15. In this connection, we may state that DW-5, the Assistant
Station Master was examined only to discredit the testimony of PW-8.

PW-5 was the Railway Magistrate during the relevant period. G
PW-29 was a Travelling Ticket Inspector and PW-39 was a constable.
>-. According to them, A. I, A.2 and A.27 were caught as ticketless
travellers by S.D. Dubey (A.40) and produced before PW-29, who in
turn handed over them to PW-39. These three accused were detained
at the waiting room of Bhatini Railway Station on the night of
12.1.1974 and produced before PW-5 on 13.1.1974 who convicted and H
•

(
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

sentenced them to imprisonment till 18.1.1974. These three accused
A themselves admit their conviction and imprisonment. But would this
piece of evidence coupled with the animosity that existed.between the
two groups be sufficient to conclude that the three accused have cons-
pired to commit this offence? No doubt, this impelling circumstance
creates a strong suspicion against A.1, A.2 and A.27 as to whether
B they had voluntarily got themselves arrested by creating a cir-
cumstance presumably due to some pre-arrangement so that this
circumstance might serve as a plea of alibi. It is well said that suspi-
cion, however strong it may be, it cannot take the place of legal proof.
Therefore, from this circumstance the Court cannot be justified in
drawing an inference that these three accused had hatched a conspi-
racy to commit this offence. There is absolutely no evidence that these
c three accused had any conversation among themselves to commit this
~ffence or they pre-planned to involve themselves in the offence of
ticketless travelling so that they might escape their involvement with
the offence. One more circumstance, relied upon by the prosecution
in attempting to prove the conspiracy, is the deposit of the gun by A.2
D on 12.1.1974 with PW 28, an arms dealer of Gorakhpur. Bil! the pro-
secution miserably fails in this attempt also because it is in evidence
that the gun licence of A.2 had already been suspended. Evidently A.2
had thought it appropriate to deposit his gun with an arms dealer for
the sake of safety. Therefore, that conduct of A.2 in depositing the
gun could not be taken as a circumstance provirig the conspiracy to
E any extent. The High Court has rightly rejected the case of the pro-
secution on this aspect and dismissed the case of conspiracy and conse-
quently set aside the conviction of these three accused under Section
302 read with Sections 109 and 120(B), IPC.

We shall now deal with the evidence relating to the actual occur-
-
F rence. The prosecution examined PWs 1, 3, 6, 11, 12, 20 and 24 as eye
witnesses to the occurrence. Of the abo;e witnesses, PW-20, who is
the son of one of the deceased has resiled from his earlier statement
and as such he was treated as a hostile witness. As has been repeatedly
stated in the earlier part of the judgment, PWs 3 and 24 were injured
during the occurrence. We shall examine the evidence of these eye-
G witnesses one by one subjecting their testimony to strict scrutiny.
,
PW-1 is none other. than the son of deceased Prabhu Nath -~
Tiwari, who is said to have been armed with a gun and fired at Rambali
(A.36). He claims to have been present at the spot of occurrence from
beginning to end and to have witnessed the entire occurrence and also
H identified all these accused persons as active participants along with
STATE OF U.P. v. MOTi RAM [PANDIAN, J.] 953

" some others. It is his evidence that he along with the other witnesses A
-'- ran towards south and took shelter in the nearby field where from he
witnessed the occurrence. After all the miscreants had left the scene he
was the person who went to the police station with a written complaint
(Ex. Ka-1) and set the law in motion. In Ex. Ka-1, PW-1 has
implicated accused Nos. 1, 2 and 27 along with others assigning
specific overtactto accused Nos. 1 and 2 stating that they were armed B
--<" with a pistol and a gun respectively and fired at the prosecution party
though has not attributed any specific overtact to A.27 against whom
PW-1 was not entertaining so much of animosity as in the case of A.1
and A.2. Besides attributing the above overtacts, he has averred in the
- , II( earliest document Ex. Ka-1, that accused Nos. 1 and 2 exhorted and
incited his associates to bounce upon the prosecution party and to
attack. On a very close examination of the testimony of PW-1, we are
c
}._ disinclined to place any reliance much less safe reliance on his
testimony for more than one reason.

Firstly, PW-1 who is the son of deceasedPrabhu Nath Tiwari and
grand-son of the deceased Tirjugi and nephew of deceased Damodar is b
not only much interested in the prosecution case, but is anemically
disposed towards accused party. The sugar cane crops which was the
subject matter for this occurrence was owned by his grand-father
Tirjugi and his family members. Secondly, the absence of any injury
I- on his person creates a grave doubt about his presence in the scene of
occurrence. Thirdly, PW-1 has not only given an exaggerated version in E
Ex. Ka-1 but also deliberately and falsely implicated A. l, A.2 and
A.27 as having actively participated arid shot at the deceased.
- Fourthly, his explanation now offered by him that he gave the names
,,, of these three accused persons since he overheard during the occur-
rence the other aceused shouting "Paras Avo, Sharda Avo, Jangi Babu
Avo" which explanation is summarily rejected both by the Trial as F

' well the High Court. Fifthly, in Ex. Ka-1, PW,1 has not given the
names of the fathers of any one of the accused persons. Sixthly, even
assuming, but not conceding that PW-1 was present at the scene of
occurrence, he when fleeing towards south for his life on seeing the
accused party with the strength of nearly 80-90 persons armed with
deadly weapons could not have witnessed any part of the occurrence G
especially when all the accused were moving towards north. Seventhly,
,>--. it would not have been possible for PW-1 to prepare Ka-1 on his own,
but this document should have been brought into existence on account
of some ·deliberations and consultations with some of the people
belonging to his faction. Eighthly, there is no guarantee to believe
even a part of his evidence when he goes to the extent of making H
954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

deliberate false implication of accused persons who are proved to have
A been in prison at the time of occurrence. Ninthly, the entry in the
General Diary dated 17.1.1974 marked as Ex. C-1 reveals that the
investigating officer recorded the statement of the witnesses only on
15.1.1974. It may be recalled that the first investigating officer, PW-43
was suspended on 16.1.1974.
B
It is surprising that though Ex. Ka-1 does not contain the names
of the fathers of any one of the accused Ex. Ka-51 (First Information
Report) prepared on the basis of Ex. Ka-1 contains the names of the
fathers of all the accused persons. The only explanation given by the
head constable Ram Hausila Pandey is that he incorporated the
fathers' names on an enquiry from others is totally unacceptable.
c Some doubt is created about the veracity of Ex. Ka-1 on the basis of
certain corrections made thereon. Though the Trial Court was inclined J
to rely upon the evidence of PW-1 despite the patent infirmities, the
High Court has rejected his evidence in toto for just reasons.

D PW-6 is the son of Rajeshwar Tiwari, who was one of the
counter petitioners on the side of the. prosecution party in the security
proceedings. This Rajeshwar Tiwari is the real brother of Tirjugi, the
deceased. PW-6 was interrogated for the first time by the investigating
officer only on 17 .1.1974. The High Court has observed that this wit- . .\
ness was thrust into service only at a later stage to serve as an ocular
E witness. The accused in their defence has attempted to show on the
basis of the evidence of CW. Hhat PWs 1 and 6 were residing far away
from the scene of the occurrence and that they were not present at the.
scene. But as CW. 1 has not supported the prosecution version, much
weigM was not attached to this evidence. However, the conduct of
PW-6 in not going to the police station and not being available for r
- ,.
F examination till 17.1.1974 leads to an inference that he would have
been made as an eye-witness to the occurrence at a belated stage. This I
witness too as PW-1 ran towards south and did not sustain any injury.
Hence we are in total agreement with the High Court that PW-6 is
pressed into service to serve as an eye-witness. PW-11 has admitted
that her parents used to take loans from Prabhu Nath Tiwari and that
G she was residing in the house of Rajeshwar Tiwari as his 'servant. The
evidence of PW-11 is contradictory to that of PWs 3 and 24, in that
PW-11 has deposed that PWs 3 and 24 were found going towards east .4,

on the road which is not the prosecution case. Though this contradic-
tion seems to be very trivial, in the context of the case it assumes some
significance in examining the presence of the witnesses at the scene.
H PW-12 is the mother of deceased Ram Vilas. She has admitted that her
STATE OF U.P. v. MOTi RAM [PANDIAN. J.J 955

.. A husband's sister had taken loan from Rajeshwar Ti.wari in lieu of which
her husband had given 12 bighas ofland to RajeshwarTiwari. Accord-
ing to these two witnesses (PWs 11 and 12), the accused persons after
firing certain shots did not use their gun, but attacked the victims only
with spears, pharsas and lathis. The High Court has given cogent and
convincin~ reasons to discard the testimony of these two witnesses
El also.

Now we are left with the testimony of the injured witnesses PWs
3 and 24 on whose evidence Mr. Prithvi Raj, learned counsel appear-
ing for the State placed much reliance.

PW-4, the Medical Officer has testified to the fact that he
c examined PW-3 at 9.15 A.M. on 15.1.1974 and noted a punctured
wound on the left scapula, an incised wound on the left buttock, two
gun shot wounds one on the left knee-another on outer side and
middle of the left shoulder and an abrasion on the left thigh. Accord-
ing to the Medical Officer, the injuries were of a day-old. He issued
D the Wound Certificate Ex. Ka-5. The same Medical Officer examined
PW-24 at about 9.30 A.M. on 15.1.1974 and found on his person two
abrasions, one contusion, a swealing and three gun shot wounds-one
on the right scapula region, the other below iliac crest and the third
one near the right elbow. Ex. Ka-6is the Wound Certificate.
I
E The very fact that these two witnesses have sustained certain gun
shot wounds probabilises the presence of these two witnesses at or
about the time of occurrence at the scene. Therefore, .their evidence
might command acceptance provided their evidence inspires confi-
dence in the minds of the Court and that the said evidence is free from
any infirmity.
F
PW-3 was a servant of Ra jeshwar Tiwari. According to the pro-
secution, these two witnesses were standing almost at tlie centre of the
eastern side of the scene field at which point they received injuries and
thereafter took shelter in the field of one Hakim. PW-3 mentions the
names of accused Nos. 3, 5-11, 15, 16, 18, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 33-37
G and 41, the total number of which is 23 of whom 11 have been acquit-
ted by the Trial Court itself. PW-24 had named six accused persons of
whom Jhullar (A.17) is said to have assaulted him. A.17 is acquitted by
the Trial Court. It shows thaf the Trial Co_11rt had not placed complete
reliance on the testimony of these two witnesses. According to him, he
and PW-24 were examined by the Sub-Inspector, PW-43 and sent for
H medical examination. But it is surprising to note that both these
956 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.K.

-
A witnesses were medically examined after a delay of 21 hours on
15.1.1974 at about 9.30 A.M. No explanation is forthcoming as to why \
there was such a delay of medical examination of these two witnesses
who are s.aid to have been sent to the hospital immediately after exami-
nation by PW-43. The entry Ex. C. 1 in the General Diary of 17.1.1974
evidently made after suspension of PW-43 shows that the statements of
B witnesses were recorded on 15.1.1974. This entry is diametrically in
opposition to the evidence of not only of these two witnesses but also
of PW-43 who is said to have examined the witnesses at the spot on the
evening of 14.1.1974 itself.

c
PW-24 has admitted that he was suffering from total blindness in
his right eye and poor sight in his left eye and he was suffering from eye
blindness since 4-5 years. He admitted that he could not see as to who
~ -
assaulted whom. Later on he stated that he had not seen any accused
)
by their face and even the accused named by him were recognised only
by their voice. It is found in the judgment of the High Court that
PW-24 was cross-examined by the public prosecutor himself which
D circumstance indicates that PW-24 has not supported the prosecution
version. It is the evidence of the investigating officer that he did not
find any blood at the place where these two witnesses were allegedly
lying. It is under these circumstances the High Court was disinclined to
place any reliance on the evidence of these two witnesses who are
indisputably partisan witnesses. It is pointed out by the High Court
E that the entry in Ex. C-1 giving the details of the investigation carried
on by PW-43 on 14.1.1974 does not indicate that the investigating
officer contacted and interrogated these two witnesses on 14.1.1974
itself. The only inference that would follow is that these two witnesses
even admitting that they had received injuries at the scene field as -
pointed out by the High Court-rightly too in our view-might have
F run away to the village and were contacted by the police only on the ''
next day. So on safe reliance can be placed on the testimony of these
two witnesses.

When viewed from any angle, we are of the firm view that the
reasons assigned by the High Court for disbelieving the testimony of
G all the ocular witnesses are unreasonable. The evidence is"llmbulatory
and vasulating besides suffering from insurmountable infirmities and
improbabilities. The totality of the evidence is unworthy of any cre-
dence when examined by the standard of yardsticks of credibility.

As we have repeatedly pointed out earlier, there is a deliberate
H . false implication of the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 27 to whom overtacts are
STATE OF U.P. v. MOTi RAM [PANDJAN, J.j 957
\ attributed in Ex. Ka-1. In fact, the High Court has gone in great depth
If into the facts and circumstances of the case and rightly concluded that
the prosecution has miserably failed in. establishing the guilt of the
A

accused except A.36. In spite of best efforts and great deal of ponder-
ing over the matter, we are unable to disagree with the conclusion
arrived at by the High Court in rejecting the testimony of these witnes-
ses whose evidence lacks the guarantee to inspire the confidence espe- B
cially when the major portion of the evidence is manifestly false and
~
patently incredible. No doubt, the circumstance attending the case,
namely, the conduct of A.1, A.2 and A.27 voluntarily getting them-
selves arrested by A.40 creates suspicion against them. But that suspi-
..; cion by itself howsoever strong it may be is not sufficient to take the
place of legal proof and warrant a finding of guilt of these three
accused. c
}.
It is pertinent to note that even the charge framed by the Trial
Court reads as if all the accused inclusive of A.1, A.2 and A.27 formed
themselves into an unlawful assembly on 14.1.1974 in the village Bali
in prosecution of the common object of committing murder of 13 D \
deceased persons and disposing of the dead bodies. In such a situation,
can it be s.aid that there is justification for convicting the rest of the
accused barring accused Nos. 1, 2 and 27 for the specific acts attributed
to them by the witnesses whose evidence is tainted with patent false-
f hood. The obse_rvation of the High Court reading "All this indicates
that Nitya Nand (PW-1) had not seen the occurrence, that the first E
information report was. not lodged when. it purports to have been
lodged, and, that it came into existence later on and was ante-timed"
cannot be said to be perverse. Similarly yet another observation read-
ing "Once it is established that some of the accused persons named by
l these witnesses had not participated in the occurrence and have been
falsely implicated by them, it will not be safe to place reliance upon F

' their testimony regarding the complicity of the other accused nomina-
ted by them without corroboration in material particulars by other
reliable evidence, direct or substantial" also does not call for
interference.

We went through the available records placed before us and G
examined them scrupulously and metculously with all seriousness and
> onerous responsibility cast upon us in getting at the truth, but we
regret to say that the entire evidence is nothing but a coloured version
with concocted story and exaggerated account mixed with falsehood
and that the prosecution has miserably failed to make out the charges
against all or any of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt except H
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

A Rambali (A.36) who himself admitted his presence at the scene. In this
connection, we would like to cite a decision of this Court in Balaka
Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, [1975] 4 SCC 511 wherein the follow-
ing observation is made.

" ..... the Court must make an attempt to separate grain
B from the chaff, the truth from the falsehood, yet this could
only be possible when the truth is separable from the false-
hood. Where the jlrain cannot be separated from the chaff
because the grain and chaff are so inextricably mixed up
that in the process of separation the Court would have to
reconstruct an absolutely new case for the prosecution by
c divorcing the essential details presented by the prosecution
completely from the context and the background against
which they are made, then this principle will not apply." J.
No doubt, it is true that this halnous offence is diabolical in
conception and executed in gruesome and ghastly manner. It is shock-
D ing that 13 persons IJ.ave been done away with in a broad day light in
the course of the same transaction. Nonetheless the Court when
satisfied that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not only
unworthy of credence, but also manifestly and inextricably mixed up
with falsehood cannot be carried away merely on the fact of multipli- .-\
city of victims and on the basis of speculations and suppositions in the
E confused stream of facts. In our considered view, the High Court has
apprised the evidence in the proper perspective and arrived at a cor-
rect conclusion which is neither perverse nor unreasonable.
I
For all the reasons stated above, we see no reason to interfere
with the findings of the High Court and dislodge the same. In the result
F the judgment of the High Court is confirmed and all the appeals pre-
ferred by the State are dismissed.

Y. Lal Appeals dismissed.
~\
r Annexure 'A' A

LIST OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS

1. Parasnath Tiwari
2. Sharda Prasad B
3. Hausila Tiwari
4. Nagendra alias Tara
5. Bishwanath
6. Mahendra Tiwari
c
7. Anirudha Tiwari
8. Shukhal
9. Pramhans
10. Prahlad D
11. Sudama
12. Jumarati
13. Shahid
I 14. Birjhan E
15. Suryaman Koiri
16. MotiRam
17. Jhullar
18. Suryabali F
19. KumarKewat
20. Shanker
21. Ram Asrey
22. Jamuna Pasi G
23. Harilal
24. Banwari
25. Bindsari
26. Lachman H

959
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

A 27. Jangi
28. Jhinnu
~
29. Samsher
30. Jetan
B 31. Bramhdoo
32. Jagdish Tiwari -~

33. Durga Pandey
34. Jagat Narain Misra
c 35. Sunder
36. Rambali
37. Babn Singh alias Bandhoo Singh
38. Parasnath Pandey
D 39. Ram Naresh Pandey
"
40. S.D. Dubey
41. Kailash

Note:
E
I. Accused Nos. 1 to 33 were tried in Sessions Trial No. A-119/74.

2. Accused Nos. 34-36 were tried in Sessions Trial No. A-160/74.

3. Accused Nos. 37-40 were tried in Sessions Trial No. A-265/74.
F
4. Accused No. 41 was tried in Sessions Trial No. A-27/75.