S.P. KURDUKAR, J - (1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by .-
(2.) A primitive theory of punishment, "limb for limb; eye for eye; ear for ear; etc., etc.", prevalent in the uncivilised society was put into actIOn in letter and spirit in the present time. The magnitude of the present crime needs no elaboration. In the present crime five deaths were involved in which a boy of ten years had been assaulted and thrown into the fire and roasted alive; heads of three human bodies were severed and the 5th who sustained firearm injuries died in the hospital after about 17 days due to septicemia. Such is the gravity of the crime. Twenty-four persons were arraigned at the trial as accused and at the conclusion of the trial, the trial court awarded death sentence to four accused, life imprisonment to twelve accused and acquitted seven accused. The trial court made a reference under section 366 Criminal Procedure Code; the convicted accused filed the appeals including those who had been awarded capital punishment; the State of U.P. also filed two appeals; one against the order of acquittal of seven accused and another for enhancement of sentence in respect of other accused. The batch of criminal appeals was heard together by the High court of Allahabad. The High court confirmed the death sentences awarded to four accused and in addition thereto while allowing the State appeal for enhancement, awarded the death sentence to three accused. The State appeal filed against the order of acquittal had been allowed and they were convicted for various offences including substantive offence under section 302 with the aid of section 149 Indian Penal Code and sentenced each one of them to suffer life imprisonment. The particulars of the accused, the weapons used during the assault and details of the deceased will be referred to shortly. These criminal appeals have been filed in this court by the accused/appellants challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the High court on 28/1/1997. All these appeals were heard together. Since they arise out of a common judgment, they are, therefore, being disposed of by this judgment. Before we advert to the Prosecution case we may set out the particulars of the accused/appellants since most of them come from the same family and some are close relatives. The accused/appellants will be refereed to in these appeals by their original description as in the trial court: 152 JUDGEMENT_149_1_1998Image1.jpg Dhakan (A-18 is nephew of A-1, Nandlal (A-20 is uncle of A-1, Srikrishna (A-19 is son of Nandlal (A-20. Sriram (A-14 and Rajaram (A-15 are brothers and sons of Bhawan Passi. Rampal (A-16 and ltwari (A-17 are brothers and sons of Bharosey. Rakesh (A-11 and Rajesh (A-12 are brothers and sons of prem Gin (A-10 who is now dead. Sankatta (A-22 and Mathura (A-21 are brothers. Dorey (A-23 is related to A-22; Rampal Verma is A-24. The deceased persons were also closely related to the complainant Mahendra Kumar (Public witness 1 as shown below: JUDGEMENT_149_1_1998Image2.jpg
(3.) IN addition to the above list of deceased persons from one family, Surendra (since deceased) was the cousin of Public Witness 1, Kamlesh (since deceased) was a relative of Public Witness 1. Sheo Pal and Ram Gularn are the relatives of Sukhdarshan (since deceased). The motive of the present crime was sought to be traced by the Prosecution from the murder of Chandrika Passi, who was a brother of A-1 and resident of Village Bajarkha. This murder took place two and a half months prIOr to the present occurrence that took place on 23/6/1990. The murder of Chandrika was alleged to be a brutal one as his head was severed. The family members of Chandrika were suspecting that Sheo Pal and Ram Gulam, the relatives of Sukhdarshan had committed the said murder and, therEFore, the criminal case against both of them for an offence of murder is stated to be pending. The accused labored under a belief that Sheo Pal, Ram Gulam and his relatives were responsible for the murder of Chandrika and it was this belief which gave cause to nurture enmity against the family 153 members of Bhuwaneshwari, Sheo Pal and Ram Gulam. The second reason for enmity sought to be alleged by the Prosecution was that Prem Giri (A-10 (since deceased) who was residing in an adjacent house to Bhuwaneshwari, had an axe to grind against the family of the latter as a civil dispute in regard to the property belonging to "Thakurji Trust" was pending between them. Bhuwaneshwari obtained the decree against Prem Giri in the trial court but we are told that the appeal filed by Prem Giri is pending in the higher court.;