STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. MOTI RAM
LAWS(SC)-1990-5-7
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on May 02,1990

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Appellant
VERSUS
MOTI RAM Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BALAKA SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [RELIED ON]



Cited Judgements :-

PREM KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-1995-3-92] [REFERRED TO]
ASHA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1991-3-62] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. GAURI SHANKAR [LAWS(ALL)-1992-4-89] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. GAURI SHANKAR [LAWS(ALL)-1992-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. BABU SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-1998-7-58] [REFERRED TO]
KOTA APPA RAO and NALLA VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-1997-9-186] [REFERRED TO]
B VEERABHADRA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1997-9-57] [REFERRED TO]
P KASI REDDY KRISHNA REDDY VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2004-10-136] [REFERRED TO]
KEMPARAJU VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2000-8-37] [REFERRED TO]
LAL SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2005-7-36] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH VS. STATE OF MP [LAWS(MPH)-2012-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM NARAYAN SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1991-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
Samtul Dhobi Suklal Dhobi VS. State of Bihar [LAWS(PAT)-1993-3-26] [REFERRED TO]
RAJU ALIAS CHHOTU VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2005-5-62] [REFERRED TO]
PREMKUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-1995-3-22] [REFERRED TO]
DHARNIDHAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(SC)-2010-7-37] [REFERRED TO]
JALPAT RAI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2011-7-106] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. RAJUBHAI DHAMIRBHAI BARIYA [LAWS(GJH)-2003-12-44] [REFERRED TO]
PURSHOTTAM LAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
JALAM SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1993-9-22] [REFERRED TO]
RAM BHAROS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2007-4-57] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. VS. IRFAN [LAWS(ALL)-2013-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
KIRTI V. AMBANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-7-42] [REFERRED TO]
KELU NAIR VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2005-1-69] [REFERRED TO]
NILENDER ALIAS LILLU VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-1997-9-155] [REFERRED TO]
BRAHMA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-1997-7-198] [REFERRED TO]
SAT PRAKASH AND ORS. VS. STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-4-254] [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-76] [REFERRED TO]
HARI SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1994-10-35] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH S/O KAMTA PRASAD TIWARI VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2012-3-247] [REFERRED]
SOHAN S/O LALSINGH DHAKAD VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2016-1-93] [REFERRED]
DEVI PRASAD PANDEY VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(CHH)-2017-7-35] [REFERRED TO]
YUSUF KHAN VS. STATE OF MP [LAWS(MPH)-2018-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
ROHTAS VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2019-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-172] [REFERRED TO]
PANCHAM VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2021-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN KUMAR PANDEY @ BABLU VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-38] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-40] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.RATNAVELPANDIAN - (1.)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 i.e. A-1, 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.
(2.)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 the judgment of the Trial Court and appended a list of the names of the accused as Annexure 'A' to this judgment so that we may not experience any difficulty in understanding and appreciating the prosecution case.
There were 41 accused in total who took their trial in sessions trial cases Nos. A-119, A-160, A-265/74 and A-27/75 as indicated by us to the foot-note to Annexure 'A'. The Trial Court convicted 16 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 22-55 years of age 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 the rest of the deceased persons belonged to a village 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 13 deceased persons. Of the accused, some are interrelated and the rest are associates.

(3.)THE scene of occurrence lies within the limits of Nebua Naurangia Police Station in the District of Deoria in the state of U. P. 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 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 and the accused formed the rival faction. There was deep rooted enmity and simmering feelings between the two groups due to the 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 (Jangi) for recovery of a sum of Rs. 20,000.00 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.

3. On 1575-1973, the first accused and some others attacked one Rajeshwar Tiwari during the course of which one Saheb belonging 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 each other's crops. This led to the initiation of a security proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.. In 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 A-1, A-27 and 54 others belonging to A-1's party were bound over.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.