Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2021

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.8676 of 2019)

STATE OF RAJASTHAN …APPELLANT

VERSUS

BABLU @ OM PRAKASH …RESPONDENT

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. OF 2021

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.8677-8682 of 2019)

(Sunil vs. Kaptan and ors.)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2021

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.9003 of 2019)

(State of Rajasthan vs. Kaptan)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2021

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.9004 of 2019)

(State of Rajasthan vs. Ranjeet)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2021

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.9124 of 2019)

(State of Rajasthan vs. Ramu @ Ram Singh)

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

2

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2021

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No………………..of 2021)

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)D.No32279 of 2019)

(State of Rajasthan vs. Radhey Shyam @ Golu and ors.)

AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2021

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No………………..of 2021)

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)D.No31873 of 2019)

(State of Rajasthan vs. Rajendra)

J U D G M E N T

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are preferred by:

i) State of Rajasthan (appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)

Nos.8676 of 2019, 9003 of 2019, 9004 of 2019, 9124 of 2019, D.No.32279 of

2019 and D.No.31873 of 2019); and

ii) Sunil S/o. Govindram, the original informant (appeals arising out of

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.8677-8682 of 2019) :-

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

3

challenging the acquittal of 11 accused persons namely Radhey Shyam

alias Golu (A1), Ramu alias Ram Singh (A4), Bablu alias Om Prakash (A5),

Jeetu alias Jeetmal (A6), Ghan Shyam alias Pintu (A7), Rajendra (A8), Ram

Gopal (A9), Sattu alias Satya Narain (A10), Kaptan (A11), Bhuria alias Dhara

Singh (A12) and Ranjeet (A13) by the High Court

1

vide its judgment and final

order dated 04.12.2018 in D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos.179 of 2018, 832 of

2017, 946 of 2017, 993 of 2017, 1123 of 2017, 1191 of 2017, 1475 of 2017

and 26 of 2018.

3. 13 persons, i.e. aforementioned 11 acquitted accused and 2 convicted

accused [Rajendra alias Tanti (A2) and Janak Singh (A3)] were tried in

Sessions Case No.80 of 2013 on the file of the Trial Court

2

in respect of

offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 450 or 450/149, 452 or

452/149, 302 or 302 read with Sections 149, 307 or 307 read with 149 of the

IPC

3

.

4. The gist

4

of the First Information Report (FIR No.75 of 2012) in

respect of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323 and 307

1

High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur

2

Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Act, Kota, Rajasthan

3

The Indian Penal Code, 1860

4

As recorded by the High Court in the judgment under appeal.

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

4

IPC, lodged at the instance of Sunil S/o. Govindram (later examined as PW1)

registered with Police Station Kaithun on 08.03.2012 was to the following

effect:-

“An FIR was registered on a written report made by

complainant Sunil on 8.3.2012. It was stated that apart from

him, Dhanpal, Madanpal, Narayan, Tulsi, Kalu Meena and

Roop Singh Pahalwan were sitting at his residence on the

festival of Holi. At that time, the accused Rajendra, Janak,

Ramu @ Ramsingh, Vijendra, Pintu, Golu, Mukat, Tanti @

Rajendra, Ramgopal, Atar, Dinesh, Bhuria @ Dharasingh

residents of Ganeshpura and Sukhpal resident of Ummedganj

and Kashiram along with 10-12 persons came equipped with

the weapons. They entered into complainant’s house and

attacked Dhanpal. Accused Rajendra and Pritam caused a

blow by a sword, whereas, Janak has been assigned Gandasi

and caused injury to Dhanpal. Other accused Ramgopal,

Tanti, Satyanarayan, Bablu, Golu, Pintu, Dinesh and Sukhpal

also caused injuries to Dhanpal. Accused Mukut, Bhuria @

Dharasingh, Atar, Hansraj, Vijendra, bablu and Satyanarayan

caused head injury to complainant.”

5. The initial medical attention to said Dhanpal was given by PW19 Dr.

Krishna Hari Sharma. However, Dhanpal died during the course of treatment

whereafter the offence under Section 302 IPC was added.

Informant PW1 Sunil was medically examined and treated by PW17 Dr.

P.P. Bansal.

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

5

6. The post-mortem on the body of Dhanpal was conducted by PW30 Dr.

Rakesh Sharma on 09.03.2012 who found following ante mortem injuries over

the body of the deceased:

“Injury No.1:- Stitched wound sized 9 Cms long present on

the left side of head.

Injury No.2:- 03 stitched wounds sized respectively 7 Cms, 6

Cms and 4 Cms long present on the rear part of the head.

Injury No.3:- Stitched wound sized 1 Cms long present on

the right side of the head.

Injury No.4:- Thin abrasion mark sized 1 Cms long present

on the right side of neck.

Injury No.5:- Abrasion 1 X 1 Cms present on the right

shoulder.

Injury No.6:- Abrasion sized 2 X 1 Cms present on the right

elbow.

Injury No.7:- Abrasion sized 1 X 3 Cms present on the spine.

Injury No.8:- Abrasion sized 1 X 1/2 Cms present on the left

elbow.

Injury No.9:- Abrasion sized 1 X 1 Cms present on the left

forearm.

Injury No.10:- Abrasion sized 1 X 1 Cms present on both

knees.

Injury No.11 :- Abrasion sized 1 X 1/2 Cms present on the

right leg.

Injury No.12:- Abrasion sized 1 X 1 Cms present on the left

leg.

Injury No.13:- Scalp Hematoma was found present on both

sides of head and found hematoma present on the rear part of

the head.

Injury No.14:- Left parietal bone was found fractured.

Injury No.15:- Subdural Hematoma was found present on the

left parietal part of the brain.

Injury No.16:- The brain matter had turned reddish and was

swollen.”

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

6

According to the medical opinion, the death of Dhanpal was due to coma

caused by the injuries caused upon him immediately prior to his death.

7. During the course of investigation, following recoveries were made

pursuant to disclosure statements of some of the accused:-

PWs Name of Witness Recovery

At whose

instance

PW7

Devkrishan Gurjar

Iron Pipe A1

Stick A7

Iron Rod A6

PW8 Jagdish Gurjar

Iron Pipe A1

Stick A7

PW9 Pawan

Iron Pipe and

Motor Cycle

A2

Gandasi and

Motor Cycle

A3

PW10 Radheshyam

Iron Pipe and

Motor Cycle

A2

Gandasi and

Motor Cycle

A3

PW11 Rafiq Iron Pipe A10

PW12 Naresh Iron Pipe A10

PW14 Suresh Iron Rod A6

PW15

Devilal

Iron Rod A4

Iron Rod A12

PW16 Deewansingh

Iron Rod A4

Iron Rod A12

PW20 Hiralal Iron Rod A5

PW21 Harisingh Iron Rod A5

PW22 Bharat Iron Rod A5

PW23 Dharamsingh Iron Pipe A5

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

7

8. After completion of investigation and committal of the case to the

Court of Sessions, charges were framed against 13 accused persons named

earlier, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 450

(alternatively under Section 450 read with Section 149), 452 (alternatively

under Section 452 read with Section 149), Section 302 (alternatively under

Section 302 read with Section 149) and 307 (alternatively under Section 307

read with Section 149) IPC.

9. The prosecution examined 40 witnesses in support of its case and

produced 77 documents while the defense examined one witness and

produced nine documents in support of its case.

10. PW-1 Sunil son of Govind Ram, the brother of the deceased stated

about the incident as under:

“Incident pertains to dated 08.03.2012 time at 1:30-2:00 PM

in the afternoon when it was the festival of Dhulandi and me

and my brother Dhanpal, Madan Pal, Jai Narain, Tulsi Ram,

Kalu Meena, Roop Singh Pehalwan were sitting in the house

and were talking to each other when just at that time people

form Ganeshpura & Prehladpura wherein Rajendra, Janak,

Ramu alias Ram singh, Vijendra, Pritam son of Rajendra,

cousin brother Jeetu, Golu, Mukut, Rajendra alias Tanti,

Ram Gopal, Satya Narain, Bhuria alias Dhara Singh, Atar,

Dinesh, Sukhpal, Ranjeet, Kaptan along with 10-12 other

persons conspiringly loaded with weapons forcefully entered

inside the house and with the intention to kill attacked with

sword and gandasa upon the head of my brother Dhanpal.

Rajendra attacked with the sword and Janak attacked with the

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

8

gandasa, Pritam with the gandasa and persons named Ram

Gopal, Tanti alisa Rajendra, Satya Narain, Bablu, Jeetu,

Golu, Ranjeet, Dinesh, Sukhpal also assaulted Dhanpal by

wielding with the blows of rod and pipe. Thereafter they

dragged my brother to the Gurudwara from there and where

also the said persons assaulted my brother. When I, went

there for intervening upon which Mukut, Bhuria, Atar,

Hansraj, Jitendra, Kaptan assaulted me also with the rod and

pipe and Bablu and Satya Narain with the sword upon me.

Thereafter which on hearing the noise of quarrel we were

saved by my brother and other persons present on the spot.

The said persons ran away towards Ganeshpura after

committing assault.”

The witness was cross examined by six different counsel who appeared

for the accused. When questioned about the injuries suffered by him and the

medical attention given to him, PW-1 stated:

“This incident was of one and half – two o’clock in the day.

It is incorrect to say that we may have directly gone to Sudha

Hospital from there. Himself said firstly we had gone to

M.B.S. Thereafter we had gone to Sudha Hospital. He stated

himself that from there he was referred to Sudha Hospital.

There were three injuries on my head, for this reason I was

referred. There were other injuries on my hands and legs,

injuries were there on my back also. My treatment continued

for two hours in M.B.S. Hospital, thereafter I was referred to

Sudha Hospital. All the three injuries on my head were of

sword. The injuries on my head were caused when I had

come to save my brother. I was inside the house itself. It is

correct that I had come out to save my brother from inside.

It is correct that no injury was caused to me inside the house.

The place where the beating had taken place, that place is

about 40 feet open space. Himself said that the beating had

taken place in the chowk. It is correct that on the day of

Dhaulandi festival I was sitting inside my room, my brother

was walking in the chowk. In the near about of my house

there is the house of Panna Lal Ghansi on the other side.

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

9

There are 3 rooms, kitchen, latrine, bathroom, 80 feet garden

and 12 feet wide gallery in my house. It is correct that there

is rasta in front of our house, wherein there is a tiraha (three

way joint), and there is the house of Prabhu Dayal nearby.

All the three injuries were sustained at one place in my house.

The injuries by sword were hit on my head by Satya Narayan

and Bablu.”

11. Apart from PW1-Sunil Kumar, who was injured in the transaction,

Madanpal (PW2), Narain alias Jainarayan (PW6) Prakash alias Kalu (PW24),

Roop Singh (PW25) and Tulsi Ram (PW27) were examined by the prosecution

as eye-witnesses to the occurrence.

Evidence of these eye witnesses was completely consistent with that of

PW1 Sunil except for certain minor variations.

A. PW2-Madanpal stated:-

“On coming they shouted abuses at the house of Sunil then

Dharmapal said that I will come on advising them you sit

inside. No sooner Dharmapal went outside then these

persons started beating Dharmapal and from there dragging

Dharmapal took him to Gurudwara which is in front. Janak,

Tanti, Ranjit, Rajendra, Pritam, Govind, Pintu, Bablu, Jeetu,

Ram Singh, Dhara Singh who were part of those persons

started giving beating to Dharmapal. Janak hit injury on the

head of Dharmapal with Gandasi. Tanti hit on the head of

Dharmapal with iron rod, then Rajendra and Pritam hit on the

head of Dharmapal with swords and Golu also hit injury on

the head of Dhanpal, the rest of the accused persons had iron

rods and woods with them with which they did beating with

Dhanpal and these very persons also did beating with Sunil

also. Lot of blood was bleeding out from the head of both of

them. Thinking Dharmapal to have died the accused persons

ran away on their motor cycles. Then we putting Sunil and

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

10

Dhanpal in the vehicle of Sunil brought them to Kaithun

Hospital, where after seeing Dharmapal doctors referred him

to other Hospital and did not admit him in Kaithun Hospital.

After that we took Dharmapal directly to M.B.S.H., Kota,

after this on treatment not being given we took Dharmapal to

Sudha Hospital, where got Dharmapal admitted and got the

treatment done. After that in the morning at 5.00 on 9/3/12

the doctors declared him dead….”

B. PW6-Narayan @ Jai Narayan deposed:-

“On 8/03/2012 Rajendra Singh, Janak, Tanti @ Rajendra

Singh, Radhey Shyam, Ghanshyam, Gopal, Sattu,

Dharasingh, Jeetu 20-25 persons of the same family, all

these persons had come to Charan Chowki, Motipura, where

there is house of my brother Sunil, and started hurling

abuses on the date, entered the house and started doing

beating and dragged my brother Dharampal to outside. All

started beating Dharmapal and Sunil. They attacked with

speed and treating Sunil and Dharmapal to have died left

them. …”

C. The version given by PW24-Prakash alias Kalu was:

“…all these persons, out of whom Rajendra Singh, who was

identified by the witness in Court, Janak, Rajendra, Tanti,

Kaptan, Kallu @ Satya Narayan, Jetu and many other

persons were there, whom I know by face, do not know their

names, entered the house of Sunil and did beating with Sunil

Bhai Sahab and carried him dragging towards the

Gurudwara. In the meantime I, Sunil, Madanpal, Tulsi, Roop

Singh Pahalwan we all came out. When Sunil had gone to

intervene then they did beating with Sunil, Rajendra with

sword, Janak with gandasi, Rajendra @ Tanti with iron pipe

and all other persons did rapid beating with them. Those

persons assuming Dhanpal bhai sahab to be dead ran away

taking motor cycle, then taking Dhanpal Bhai sahab and

Sunil we had gone to Kaithun Hospital. There because of the

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

11

doctor not being available we took them to M.B.S. Hospital,

Kota, where also because of delay in the treatment we took

him to private Hospital Sudha Hospital. Where death of

Dhanpal Bhai Sahab took place in the night. The treatment

of Sunil was going on. There were several injuries on the

head of Sunil and on the head and body of Dhanpal…”

D. PW25-Roop Singh deposed:-

“…As soon as Dhanpal reached near the gate, all these

persons took him taking out of the house and giving beating

upto the road. They had pipe, sword, Gandasis with them,

with which they had attacked Dhanpal. Sword was in the

hand of Rajendra, Gandasi was in the hand of Janak and pipe

was with Tanti @ Rajendra, we all together had protected

Dhanpal. These persons treating Dhanpal and Sunil to have

died ran away. We also had gone to Kaithun Hospital taking

Dhanpal and Sunil in injured condition, Narayan, Tulsi, Kalu

had taken them to Hospital. …”

E. PW27-Tulsiram in his examination stated:-

“I, Narayan, Sunil, Madanpal, Roopsingh, Prakas @ Kalu

were sitting at the house of Sunil and were eating pakodis,

and were applying gulal to one another. At about one and half

– two o’clock residents of Prahladpura and Ganehpura

Rajendra, Rajendra @ Tanti, Janak, Ram Gopal, Sattu, Ram

Singh @ Ramu, Dhara Singh @ Bhuria, Satya Narayan @

Sattu, Ranjit, Golu @ Radhey Shyam, Pintu @ Ghanshyam,

Bablu, Jeetmal @ Jeetu, all these persons came to the house

of Sunil. All of them were armed with arms. Janak had

Gandasi, Rajendra @ Tanti has iron pipe, Rajendra had

sword, Ramgopal had iron rod with him, Golu had iron pipe,

Pinto had wood and otherx also had woods with them and

had iron pipes also. They started hurling abuses from outside

the house of Sunil and said come out today we will play holi

of blood. Dhanpal told us you stop I will satisfy them. Just

at that time these persons came inside the house and all of

them started beating Dhanpal. Janak hit with Gandasi on the

head of Dhanpal. Rajendra hit with sword on the head of

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

12

Dhanpal, Tanti had hit with iron pipe, Ram Gopal also

attacked on the head of Dhanpal with iron pipe and dragging

they took Dhanpal near the Gurudwara. When Sunil came to

intervene then these persons also started attacking on them.

Taking Dhanpal to have died these persons went from there

then we took Dhanpal and Sunil to the hospital. From M.B.S.

we took these persons to Sudha Hospital. There during the

course of treatment the death of Dhanpal occurred.”

12. The involvement of every accused as deposed by the eyewitnesses and

the role ascribed to each of the accused can be tabulated as under:-

Accused Name Role Ascribed Witness

A1 RADHEY

SHAM alias

GOLU

Entered the house

PW1

Hurled abuses. Hit on

Dhanpal’s head,

dragged Dhanpal till

Gurudwara which was

100 steps away from

the house, took PW1 to

the Gurudwara.

PW2

Came to the house,

Hurled Abuses, Hit on

Dhanpal’s head,

dragged Dhanpal from

the house to Gurudwara

which was 100 steps

away, hit PW1.

PW6

Entered the house

armed with Iron Pipe,

hit on the heads of PW1

and Dhanpal.

PW27

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

13

A2 RAJENDRA

alias TANTI

Entered the house,

carrying iron pipe,

assaulted Dhanpal,

inflicted blows of rod on

the hands, legs, knees

and body of Dhanpal,

dragged Dhanpal from

the house to Gurudwara

which was 100 steps

away, assaulted PW1

inside the house as well

as outside the house.

PW1

Hurled abuses. Hit on

Dhanpal’s head,

dragged Dhanpal till

Gurudwara which was

100 steps away from the

house, took PW1 to the

Gurudwara.

PW2

Came to the house,

Hurled Abuses, hit

Dhanpal on head with

Iron Rod, hit PW1,

dragged Dhanpal from

house to Gurudwara, ran

towards PW6 to hit him.

PW6

Entered PW1’s house

and did beating with

Dhanpal with fists and

legs and carried him to

Gurudwara, hit PW1

with iron pipe, hit

Dharampal with iron

pipe.

PW24

Hurled abuses at

Dhanpal, Came to gate

and hit Dhanpal inside

the house, hit Dhanpal

PW25

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

14

with iron pipe, hit on

Dhanpal’s head.

Entered the house

armed with Iron Pipe

and hit on Dhanpal’s

head, hit on the heads of

PW1 and Dhanpal.

PW27

A3 JANAK

SINGH

Entered the house,

attacked Dhanpal with

gandassa, dragged

Dhanpal from the house

to Gurudwara which

was 100 steps away.

PW1

Hurled abuses. Hit on

Dhanpal’s head,

dragged Dhanpal till

Gurudwara which was

100 steps away from the

house, took PW1 to the

Gurudwara.

PW2

Came to the house,

Hurled Abuses, hit

Dhanpal on head with

Gandasi, hit PW1,

dragged Dhanpal from

house to Gurudwara, ran

towards PW6 to hit him.

PW6

Entered PW1’s house

and did beating with

Dhanpal with fists and

legs and carried him to

Gurudwara, hit PW1

with gandasi, hit

Dharampal with iron

pipe.

PW24

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

15

Hurled abuses at

Dhanpal, Came to gate

and hit Dhanpal inside

the house, hit Dhanpal

with gandasi, hit on

Dhanpal’s head.

PW25

Entered the house

armed with gandasi and

hit on the head of

Dhanpal, hit on the

heads of PW1 and

Dhanpal.

PW27

A4 RAMU alias

RAM

SINGH

Entered the house,

dragged Dhanpal from

the house to Gurudwara

which was 100 steps

away.

PW1

Entered the house

armed with iron

pipe/wood stick, hit on

the heads of PW1 and

Dhanpal

PW27

A5 BABLU

alias OM

PRAKASH

Assaulted Dhanpal,

attacked PW1 when he

intervened, dragged

Dhanpal from the house

to Gurudwara which are

100 steps away, caused

injuries on front side

PW1’s head

PW1

Entered the house

armed with iron

pipe/wood stick, hit on

the heads of PW1 and

Dhanpal.

PW27

A6 JEETU alias

JEETMAL

Entered the house,

assaulted Dhanpal,

dragged Dhanpal from

the house to Gurudwara

which was 100 steps

PW1

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

16

away.

Came to the house,

Hurled Abuses, hit PW1

PW6

Entered PW1’s house

and did beating with

Dhanpal with fists and

legs and carried him to

Gurudwara, attacked

Dhanpal and PW1

PW24

Entered the house

armed with iron

pipe/wood stick, hit on

the heads of PW1 and

Dhanpal

PW27

A7 GHAN

SHYAM

alias PINTU

Entered the house,

dragged Dhanpal from

the house to Gurudwara

which was 100 steps

away

PW1

Hurled abuses. Hit on

Dhanpal’s head,

dragged Dhanpal till

Gurudwara which was

100 steps away from the

house, took PW1 to the

Gurudwara.

PW2

Came to the house,

Hurled Abuses, gave

beating to Dhanpal, hit

PW1

PW6

Entered the house armed

with wood stick, hit on

the heads of PW1 and

Dhanpal

PW27

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

17

A8 RAJENDRA Entered the house,

Attacked Dhanpal on

head with sword,

caused injury with

sword on the backside of

Dhanpal’s head,

dragged Dhanpal from

the house to Gurudwara

which was 100 steps

away

PW1

Gave Dhanpal one blow

on the head

PW2

Hurled Abuses, hit

Dhanpal on head with

swords, hit PW1

PW6

Entered PW1’s house

and did beating with

Dhanpal with fists and

legs and carried him to

Gurudwara, hit PW1

with sword, hit

Dharampal with sword

PW24

Hurled abuses at

Dhanpal, Came to gate

and hit Dhanpal inside

the house, hit Dhanpal

with sword, hit on

Dhanpal’s head

PW25

Entered the house

armed with sword and

hit on Dhanpal’s head,

inflicted injuries on

PW1 with sword, hit on

the heads of PW1 and

Dhanpal

PW27

A9 RAM

GOPAL

Entered the house,

assaulted Dhanpal,

dragged Dhanpal from

the house to Gurudwara

which was 100 steps

PW1

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

18

away

Came to the house,

Hurled Abuses, hit PW1

PW6

Entered the house

armed with iron rod and

hit on Dhanpal’s head,

hit on the heads of PW1

and Dhanpal

PW27

A10 SATTU alias

SATYA

NARAIN

Entered the house,

assaulted Dhanpal,

attacked PW1 when he

intervened, dragged

Dhanpal from the house

to Gurudwara which

was 100 steps away,

caused injuries on

PW1’s head

PW1

Came to the house,

Hurled Abuses, hit PW1

PW6

Entered PW1’s house

and attacked Dhanpal

and carried him to

Gurudwara, attacked

PW1 and Dhanpal

PW24

Entered the house

armed with iron

pipe/wood stick, hit on

the heads of PW1 and

Dhanpal

PW27

A11 KAPTAN Entered the house,

attacked PW1 when he

intervened, ragged

Dhanpal from the house

to Gurudwara which

was 100 steps away

PW1

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

19

Entered PW1’s house

and did beating with

Dhanpal with fists and

legs and carried him to

Gurudwara, attacked

PW1 and Dhanpal

PW24

A12 BHURIA

alias

DHARA

SINGH

Entered the house,

attacked PW1 when he

intervened

PW1

Came to the house,

Hurled Abuses, hit PW1

PW6

Entered the house

armed with iron

pipe/wood stick, hit on

the heads of PW1 and

Dhanpal

PW27

A13 RANJEET Entered the house,

assaulted Dhanpal

PW1

Hurled abuses. Hit on

Dhanpal’s head, dragged

Dhanpal till Gurudwara

which was 100 steps

away from the house,

took PW1 to the

Gurudwara.

PW2

Hurled Abuses, gave

beating to Dhanpal, hit

PW1, dragged Dhanpal

from house to

Gurudwara, ran

towards PW6 to hit him

PW6

Entered the house

armed with iron

pipe/wood stick, caught

Dhanpal, hit on the

heads of PW1 and

PW27

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

20

Dhanpal

13. The medical evidence on record was unfolded by i) PW17- Dr. P.P.

Bansal who had treated PW1 Sunil, ii) PW19-Dr. Krishna Hari Sharma who

had initially treated Dhanpal and iii) PW30-Dr. Rakesh Sharma who had

conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased Dhanpal.

PW36-Dr.Vivek Goel was also examined in respect of injuries suffered

by Accused Nos.1,2 and 7.

14. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 19.04.2017 passed

order of conviction against all 13 accused as under:-

“Therefore in overall view of aforesaid analysis and in view

of the citations the prosecution has completely succeeded in

proving far from reasonable doubts the offences u/s 147,

148, 149, 450 or 450/149, 302 or 302 r/w sections 149, 307

or 307 r/w section 149 IPC against the accused persons

Radhey Shyam alias Golu, Rajendra alias Tanti, Janak

Singh, Ramu alias Ram Singh, Bablu, Jeetu alias Jeetmal,

Ghan Shyam alias Pintu, Rajendra, Ram Gopal, Sattu alias

Satya Narain, Kaptan, Bhuria alias Dhara Singh and Ranjeet.

Accordingly, it appears justified for holding the aforesaid

accused persons guilty of the charges for the commission of

aforesaid offences and also it appears justified for acquitting

the aforesaid accused persons of the charges for the offences

u/s 452 or 452/149 IPC.”

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

21

By the order of sentence passed on the same day, the Trial Court

sentenced all 13 accused persons as under:-

“(1) Aforesaid accused persons are held convicted for the

charge u/s 147 IPC and are sentenced with 2 years of

rigorous imprisonment.

(2) Aforesaid accused persons are held convicted for the

charge u/s 148 IPC and are sentenced with 2 years of

rigorous imprisonment and each accused is punished

with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of failure to

deposit the fine each accused to undergo an additional

simple imprisonment of one month.

(3) Aforesaid accused persons are held convicted for the

charge u/s 450 or 450/149 IPC and are sentenced with 7

years of rigorous imprisonment and each accused is

punished with a fine of Rs.10000/- and in default of

failure to deposit the fine each accused to undergo an

additional simple imprisonment of two months.

(4) Aforesaid accused persons are held convicted for the

charge u/s 302 IPC and are sentenced with a life

imprisonment and each accused is punished with a fine

of Rs.30000/-and in default of failure to deposit the fine

each accused to undergo an additional simple

imprisonment of six months.

(5) Aforesaid accused persons are held convicted for the

charge u/s 307 IPC and are sentenced with 7 years of

rigorous imprisonment and each accused is punished

with a fine of Rs.10000/- and in default of failure to

deposit the fine each accused to undergo an additional

simple imprisonment of two months.

All the sentences of the accused persons to run concurrently.

The duration of custody already undergone by the accused

persons in police custody/judicial custody to be adjusted in

their duration of final sentence. Warrant of sentence of the

accused persons to be accordingly prepared.”

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

22

14.1 The evidence led by the prosecution through the eyewitnesses account

of PW1-Sunil Kumar, PW2-Madanpal, PW6-Narain alias Jainarayan, PW24-

Prakash alias Kalu, PW25-Roop Singh and PW27-Tulsiram was found by the

Trial Court to be trustworthy. The submission advanced on behalf of the

accused with regard to PW6-Narain alias Jainarayan was dealt with by the Trial

Court as under:-

“In the sequence of the said witness it was contended by the

Counsel during the arguments that the said witness is not the

witness of crime scene and has been planted and his presence

is not corroborated by PW-24 Prakash alias Kalu and he

arrived at the crime scene after the occurrence of incident

and in the said relation PW-29 Chhagan Singh, Investigation

Officer, has also disclosed that during his investigation he

did not find the said witness as the eyewitness. In the said

sequence, the facts and the contentions rendered by the

Investigation Officer and the Counsels are not found

appropriate. On perusing the testimonies rendered by other

witnesses in relation to the said fact wherein the

examination-in-chief of PW-1 Sunil itself he has disclosed

the presence of Jai Narain inside his house. In the report

Exhibit P-1 also he has disclosed the presence of Jai Narain

inside his house at the time of occurrence of incident and the

said fact has also been corroborated during his deposition

before the Court and which has not been contradicted in any

manner. Similarly has corroborated the presence of Jai

Narain during his cross-examination and had brought him to

the hospital after lifting him. … …”

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

23

15. All 13 convicted accused, being aggrieved, filed aforesaid D.B.

Criminal Appeal Nos. 179 of 2018, 832 of 2017, 946 of 2017, 993 of 2017,

1123 of 2017, 1191 of 2017, 1475 of 2017 and 26 of 2018 in the High Court.

The High Court by its Judgment, presently under challenge, affirmed the

conviction and sentence recorded against Rajendra alias Tanti (A2) and Janak

Singh (A3) but acquitted all other 11 accused persons of the charges levelled

against them. It was observed by the High Court:-

“The argument of learned counsel for the appellants is about

over implication and false implication of other accused, who

have not been assigned any specific injury to the injured and

deceased even by eyewitnesses. It is true that when the FIR

was registered, names of nineteen accused were given apart

from involvement of 10-12 other persons. The police did not

file charge-sheet against seven accused out of nineteen,

though charge-sheet against Ranjeet, who was not named in

the FIR, was filed. It is after making investigation of the

case. On the strength of the aforesaid, we need to find out a

case of over-implication, rather, for that, to look into the

evidence led by the prosecution.

… … …

We find that the prosecution even produced independent

witnesses PW/25 Roopsingh, who has supported the

prosecution case and, accordingly, corroborated the

statement of PW/1 Sunil Kumar. In view of the above, the

prosecution could lead evidence to prove participation of

Janak Singh, Pritam and Rajendra @ Tanti in the occurrence

and to cause head injury to deceased.

The prosecution, however, did not file charge-sheet against

Pritam and even no application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

was moved during the course of trial thus despite specific

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

24

allegation against Pritam to cause one head injury to

deceased, he has not been prosecuted.

In view of the above, there remains two accused against

whom specific allegation remains for causing head injury to

deceased Dhanpal, namely Janak Singh and Rajendra @

Tanti. We find that eye-witnesses and injured witnesses

have not named other accused in specific terms with

assignment of weapon and injury, either to injured or to

deceased. They have been convicted with the aid of Section

149 IPC.

To appreciate the argument of learned counsel for the

appellant, we have considered the case to find out as to

whether a case for conviction with the aid of Section 149

IPC is made out. As per the prosecution, the appellants had

a motive to cause the occurrence and, therefore, they came

with common object. The accused were equipped with the

weapons thus not only case of unlawful assembly was

proved but their participation with common object also gets

proved in reference to the incident took place four days ago

when complainant party attacked on the accused party. It is

only to settle the score that accused came and caused

occurrence on 8.3.2012.

We find that four days prior to the date of incident in the

present case, complainant said to have attacked on the

accused party. In view of the above, there was a motive with

the accused to cause occurrence. Once motive was there,

common object to cause occurrence can also be inferred,

however, conviction cannot be based on inferences but facts

proved by evidence.

… … …

The injured and deceased did not receive injury by sharp

edged weapon but it all depends whether Gandasi was sharp

enough to cause such an injury. In view of the above, we are

not inclined to accept the argument of learned counsel for

the appellant Janak Singh with reference to the nature of

injury to the deceased when specific allegation has been

made by the injured as well as eye-witnesses for causing

head injury to him.

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

25

So far as Rajendra @ Tanti is concerned, a blunt object has

been recovered from him. Against him also specific

allegation for causing head injury to the deceased has been

made. The recovery of weapon at his disclosure is

corroborated by the statement of eye-witnesses thus, we find

case against him also.

So far as Rajendra S/o. Kashi/Dharam Singh is concerned,

initially, the charge-sheet was not filed against him. He has

otherwise taken a defence of “alibi” in his statement under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is by stating that four days prior to

the date of occurrence in this case, he sustained injuries on

head, thus was at his residence. He has denied his

participation in the occurrence, rather, his presence therein.

The statement of said accused namely Rajendra S/o

Kashi/Dharam Singh has been corroborated by PW/37

Ramendra Singh. It is stated that on the festival of Holi, he

visited Rajendra S/o Kashi/Dharam Singh at his residence.

He was having head injury covered with a bandage. The said

witness has supported the statement of Rajendra S/o

Kashi/Dharam Singh. It is also a fact that no weapon has

been recovered from him and, initially, when the FIR was

lodged, name of only one Rajendra was given for head

injury. It was subsequently named by the witness as

Rajendra Singh @ Tanti. In view of the above, we find a

case in favour of Rajendra S/o Kashi/Dharam Singh. It is

not only by accepting his plea of alibi but taking into

consideration the evidence to corroborate it.

So far as other accused are concerned, since we have not

accepted the case of the prosecution for conviction with the

aid of Section 149 IPC and as specific allegation for causing

injury with the assignment of weapon has not been made, we

find a case in their favour also. We have already recorded

the finding about previous enmity between the two groups

and, at times, it results in over-implication, which is even

established from the fact that after investigation, charge-

sheet was not filed against all the accused. Thus, mere

recovery of the weapons at their disclosure cannot connect

the accused without assignment of injury to them.”

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

26

16. In this appeal we heard Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Senior

Advocate and Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State, Ms.

Archana Pathak Dave, learned Advocate for the Complainant and Mr.

Aditya Kumar Choudhary, Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Mr. Randhir

Kumar Ojha, learned Advocates for the accused-respondents.

It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the eyewitness

account was quite clear and specifically adverted to the overt acts

committed by all the accused and that the High Court was not right in

acquitting 11 accused-respondents. It was submitted that no cogent

reasons were given by the High Court in setting aside the order of

conviction and sentence against said 11 accused-respondents and that this

Court would, therefore, be justified in setting aside the order of acquittal

recorded by the High Court.

The learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the accused-

respondents, on the other hand, submitted that, as found by the High

Court, there was an incident four days prior to the occurrence in question,

in which some of the accused persons had received injuries. Thus, the

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

27

inter se rivalry between two groups could as well be and was rightly found

by the High Court to be the motive to over-implicate; and as such, the

High Court was justified in recording acquittal.

17. With regard to the presence of the prosecution witnesses who were

examined as eyewitnesses to the occurrence, nothing was brought on

record to discredit them except the submission that the presence of PW6-

Narain alias Jainarayan was not spoken to or adverted by PW24-Prakash @

Kalu. The fact that one of these witnesses had suffered injuries in the

transaction and the rest of them had taken the deceased as well as the injured to

medical center immediately after the occurrence lends credibility to the case of

the prosecution unfolded through these eyewitnesses. Nothing has been

brought on record in their cross-examinations to dislodge the credibility of

these witnesses.

Even then, we may eschew the testimony of PW6-Narain alias

Jainarayan as his presence was not adverted to by PW24-Prakash @ Kalu.

That leaves us with 5 eyewitnesses who had testified to the presence and

participation of the accused-respondents.

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

28

18. In Masalti vs. State of U.P.

5

a four Judge Bench of this Court was

called upon to consider whether the approach adopted by the High Court

in convicting only those accused with respect to whom at least four

witnesses had given a consistent account, came up for consideration. In

that case five persons had lost their lives in the assault opened by the

unlawful assembly and apart from witness Laxmi Prasad, none of the

witnesses had attributed any overt acts to the accused but had merely

mentioned the names of the accused being present as part of the unlawful

assembly. Adopting the yardstick as stated above, the High Court

affirmed the conviction of 10 accused persons out of 35 accused persons

under Section 32 read with 149 IPC by the Trial Court, which decision of

the High Court was accepted by this Court.

19. The decision in Masalti

5

has since then been followed by this

Court consistently and was explained in State of Maharashtra vs.

Ramlal Devappa Rathod and others

6

as under:-

5

(1964) 8 SCR 133; AIR 1965 SC 202

6

(2015) 15 SCC 77

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

29

21. That brings us to the question whether in an attack such

as the present one, how far the principle laid down by this

Court in Masalti

5

is applicable? In Masalti

5

one Laxmi

Prasad and his armed companions had proceeded to the

house of one Gayadin. On the instigation of Laxmi Prasad,

the assailants broke open the doors of the house of Gayadin,

killed four persons including Gayadin and dragged their

bodies out of the house whereafter one more person was

killed. These five dead bodies were then taken to the field

and set on fire. Out of thirty-five accused who were

convicted, ten accused were given death sentence. The High

Court confirmed their sentence of death and out of the

remaining accused, seven were given benefit of doubt.

Insofar as the accused who were convicted with the aid of

Section 149, the High Court adopted a test and held that

unless at least four witnesses had shown to have given a

consistent account against any of the appellants, the case

against them could not be said to have been proved. The

decision discloses that except Laxmi Prasad, none of the

assailants was assigned any particular part. The evidence as

regards other accused was that they were part of unlawful

assembly which is evident from the following observations

of this Court: (Masalti case

5

, AIR p. 207, para 7)

“7. … It also considered another feature which

characterised the evidence of all the witnesses and

that was that they gave their account of the

incident substantially in similar terms and did not

assign particular parts in respect of overt acts to

any of the assailants except Laxmi Prasad,

Accused 1.”

The observations of this Court further show that though

testimony of a single witness would be enough to convict an

accused person, in a case involving large number of accused,

where the witnesses depose to the fact that certain persons

were members of unlawful assembly which had committed

the offences in question, a test so adopted by the High Court

was found to be safe. It was observed that though every

member of the unlawful assembly would be liable for the

offence committed by anyone actuated by and entertaining

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

30

common object of the unlawful assembly, in the absence of

any overt act or specific allegation, it was possible to adopt

such test.

… … …

24. The liability of those members of the unlawful assembly

who actually committed the offence would depend upon the

nature and acceptability of the evidence on record. The

difficulty may however arise, while considering the liability

and extent of culpability of those who may not have actually

committed the offence but were members of that assembly.

What binds them and makes them vicariously liable is the

common object in prosecution of which the offence was

committed by other members of the unlawful assembly.

Existence of common object can be ascertained from the

attending facts and circumstances. For example, if more than

five persons storm into the house of the victim where only

few of them are armed while the others are not and the armed

persons open an assault, even unarmed persons are

vicariously liable for the acts committed by those armed

persons. In such a situation it may not be difficult to ascertain

the existence of common object as all the persons had

stormed into the house of the victim and it could be assessed

with certainty that all were guided by the common object,

making every one of them liable. Thus when the persons

forming the assembly are shown to be having same interest

in pursuance of which some of them come armed, while

others may not be so armed, such unarmed persons if they

share the same common object, are liable for the acts

committed by the armed persons. But in a situation where

assault is opened by a mob of fairly large number of people,

it may at times be difficult to ascertain whether those who

had not committed any overt act were guided by the common

object. There can be room for entertaining a doubt whether

those persons who are not attributed of having done any

specific overt act, were innocent bystanders or were actually

members of the unlawful assembly. It is for this reason that

in Masalti

5

this Court was cautious and cognizant that no

particular part in respect of an overt act was assigned to any

of the assailants except Laxmi Prasad. It is in this backdrop

and in order to consider

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

31

“whether the assembly consisted of some persons

who were merely passive witnesses and had joined

the assembly as a matter of idle curiosity without

intending to entertain the common object of the

assembly”, (AIR p. 211, para 17)

this Court at SCR pp. 148-49 in Masalti

5

observed that his

participation as a member of the unlawful assembly ought to

be spoken by more than one witness in order to lend

corroboration. The test so adopted in Masalti

5

was only to

determine liability of those accused against whom there was

no clear allegation of having committed any overt act but

what was alleged against them was about their presence as

members of the unlawful assembly. The test so adopted was

not to apply to cases where specific allegations and overt acts

constituting the offence are alleged or ascribed to certain

named assailants. If such test is to be adopted even where

there are specific allegations and overt acts attributed to

certain named assailants, it would directly run counter to the

well-known maxim that “evidence has to be weighed and not

counted” as statutorily recognised in Section 134 of the

Evidence Act.”

20. In the backdrop of the principles set out in the decisions of this Court,

even the version of a single witness, if his testimony is found reliable by the

Court, can be the foundation of the order of conviction.

In the instant case, the evidence of PW1-Sunil Kumar, the brother of the

deceased itself would normally be sufficient. Said witness had received injuries

in the transaction and his presence could not even be doubted. Additionally,

there were four witnesses viz. PW2-Madanpal, PW24-Prakash alias Kalu,

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

32

PW25-Roopsingh and PW27-Tulsiram. The chart tabulated hereinabove

shows the role ascribed to each of the accused.

21. In the face of such clear, consistent and cogent evidence on record, the

High Court was not justified in proceeding on the basis that the eyewitnesses

had not named other accused in specific terms or entertaining any doubt and

then recording order of acquittal. The approach of the High Court was

completely against the settled principles of law and no valid reasons were given

by the High Court as to why the evidence of all the eyewitnesses could not be

relied upon in so far as the role played by the acquitted accused was concerned.

We find the order of acquittal recorded by the High Court to be completely

unjust and its conclusion to be totally against the record.

In these appeals against acquittal, therefore, we do not find ourselves

persuaded to go by the order of acquittal passed by the High Court as the same,

in our considered view, was manifestly erroneous and perverse.

22. Considering the entirety of the material on record, what emerges is the

consistent and cogent eyewitness account on record through PWs 1 and 27,

which was well supported by PWs 2, 24 and 25. We may, at the cost of

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

33

repetition, state here that we have not taken into account the evidence of PW6-

Narain alias Jainarain for the reasons stated hereinabove.

23. As there was an earlier incident just four days prior to the occurrence

in question, in order to lend complete assurance and as a matter of prudence, a

criteria may be adopted where, if any of the eyewitnesses (other than PW6),

apart from and in addition to PWs 1 and 27 had adverted to and attributed overt

acts to any of the accused, the role of such accused can be taken to have been

established beyond any doubt.

We must hasten to add that the principle in Masalti

5

would get attracted

where apart from attribution of presence, nothing more was attributed by way

of any overt act. However, in the facts of the instant case; and to rule out any

possibility of over-implication we have adopted this criteria, more particularly

because we are considering the matter in appeals against acquittal. Thus,

accused A1, A6, A7, A8, A10 and A13 are those who were attributed certain

overt acts not only by PWs 1 and 27 but at least by one more witness, whereas,

the role attributed to the rest of them was only by PWs 1 and 27 without any

other eyewitnesses apart from PW6, deposing about the role played by them.

Criminal Appeal No…………………of 2021 etc. [arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 8676 of 2019 etc.)

State of Rajasthan etc. vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash etc.

34

24. In the circumstances, we allow these appeals against original accused

A1, A6, A7, A8, A10 and A13 while rest of the accused-respondents are given

benefit of doubt and their acquittal, as recorded by the High Court is confirmed.

The order of conviction and sentence recorded against original accused

A1, A6, A7, A8, A10 and A13 by the Trial Court is thus restored. These

accused persons shall surrender themselves within four weeks from today,

failing which they shall be taken in custody to serve out the sentence recorded

against them.

The copies of this Judgment and Order shall be sent to the concerned

Police Station and the jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate for compliance.

25. These appeals are partly allowed to the extent indicated above.

……………………………….J.

[UDAY UMESH LALIT]

……………………………….J.

[AJAY RASTOGI]

NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 24, 2021.