Mohan And Others vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 10210 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mohan And Others vs State Of U.P. on 8 September, 2025

Author: Vivek Kumar Birla

Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Reserved on 21.05.2025
 
    Delivered on 08.09.2025
 
Neutral Citation No. - Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:157322-DB
 

 
In Chamber
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2710 of 1983
 
Appellant :- Mohan And Others
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- B.K.Tripathi,G.S.Dwivedi,Prashant Vyas,Rajeev Lochan Shukla,S.K.Dubey,Santosh Kumar Mishra,Yogesh Narayan Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.,Ghanshyam Dwivedi
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
 

Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.

(Per: Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

1. Vide orders dated 10.08.2016, 03.05.2017 and 07.05.2025 appeal stood abated in respect of appellant no.2 Gulbadan, appellant no.5 Mahesh, appellant no.6 Ram Bhajan and appellant no.10 Shiv Poojan. Now, we proceed to consider the appeal on behalf of appellant nos.1 Mohan, appellant no.3 Rama Anuj, appellant no.4 Kaira, appellant no.7 Chippoo alias Umashanker, appellant no.8 Bhadela alias Kamlesh and appellant no.9 Gayan Bhooshan.

2. Heard Shri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate holding brief of Shri Prashant Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant No.1, Shri Shashank Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Shri Rajeev Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant nos. 7 and 8, Shri Yogesh Narayan Shukla, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant no.9, Shri Utsav, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ghanshyam Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant and Shri O.P.Dwivedi, learned AGA-Ist for the State.

3. The appellants, by way of filing this appeal, have challenged their conviction and sentence under Sections 302/149 IPC, vide judgement and order dated 03.11.1983 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karvi, Banda, in Sessions Trial No.347 of 1980. Appellant nos.5 and 6 Mahesh and Ram Bhajan have been convicted and sentenced under Section 147 IPC for two years rigorous imprisonment and appellant no.2 Gulbadan has been convicted and sentenced under Section 307 IPC to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- has been imposed. As default of payment of fine one year rigorous imprisonment has been awarded. Appellant no.4 Kaira has been convicted and sentenced under Section 404 IPC to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine of 9 months rigorous imprisonment has been awarded and appellants Mohan, Gulbadan, Kaira, Rama Anuj, Chippoo alias Uma Shanker, Bhadela alias Kamlesh, Gayan Bhooshan and Shiv Pujan have been convicted and sentenced under Section 148 IPC to two years rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

4. The prosecution story in brief is that complainant Rajdhar Mishra son of Brij Nandan, resident of village Kobra, Police Station Raipura, District Banda has given a written report at concerned police station stating therein that in the year 1973, Chandrapals brother of the village was murdered. In this murder, he and his brother Sundar Lal Pradhan etc. were accused but they were acquitted by the court. Since then, Chandrapal's sons Gulbadan, Ramanuj and Kaira held strong enmity against them. In 1976, Shiv Kumar, brother of Mohan of the village, who was a hardened criminal, was killed in a police encounter. His brother Sundar Lal was a witness in this case. Mohan believed that Sundar Lal had a hand in the killing of his brother Shiv Kumar. Since then, Mohan had also strong enmity against them and Gulbadan and Mohan Lal started looking for an opportunity to kill him. On the day of wedding of the daughter at the house of Sunder Lal's brother-in-law Devpal resident of Kaubra, he and his brother Sunder Lal went to Devpal's house at about 1 o'clock in the afternoon to attend the wedding. Sunder Lal had taken his licensed double barrel gun and cartridges. There was some time for the food to be prepared, so his brother Sunder Lal was sitting on a cot facing east on the south side of the Sadari door in Devpal's house and Satyadev son of Ram Mantra resident of Kaubra was sitting on the same cot. Devpal and Shri Pal were weighing flour in Devpal's courtyard when at about 1.30 P.M. in the afternoon, Mohan son of Mahesh of the village came with a double barrel cartridge gun and Gulbadan and Ramanuj, sons of Chandrapal came with a single barrel cartridge gun and Kaira son of Chandrapal came with a pistol. Mahesh son of Ram Bahori and Ram son of Ram Kuwar came with sticks. Chippu alias Uma Shankar and Bhadela alias Kamlesh sons of Ram Bhajan, Poojan son of Jagannath armed with an axe, Gyan Bhushan son of Jagannath armed with an axe, had come to the door of Dev Pal, when his eyes fell on these people he called out. Sundar, Mohan and Gulbadan etc. came and at that very moment Mohan, Gulbadan, Ramanuj, Kaira rushed into the Bharote and they fired at his brother Sundar Lal from their weapons. Satya Dev hugged Sundar to save him when one of their bullets hit him in the back. Devpal and Shripal challenged them. Gulbadan fired a shot with the intention of killing him. Luckily he was saved and a pellet of this bullet hit Devpal near the elbow of his left hand and they retreated. The accused were constantly challenging that if anyone comes near, he will also be killed. Hearing the sound of firing, Shiv Bhajan Brahm and Ram Mantra of Gauriya and Rama Athai etc. of the village rushed to the spot and they kept on stopping the accused from doing so. The accused Mahesh, Ram Bhajan, Chippu, Bhadela, Gyan Bhushan, Poojan, Barabar were standing outside Devpal's door. They kept on shouting that Sunder should not be able to escape from his life and whoever comes near him will also be killed. Mahesh and Ram Bhajan were saying that they would settle the matter once and for all. When the accused felt that Sunder was dead, accused Kaira took a box of cartridges from his licensed double barrel gun no. 6892 and then all the accused went towards the west while threatening. Satya Dev kept breathing for about 15-20 minutes, after that he also died. He had handed over the dead bodies of Sunder and Satyadev to his brother Premika and Baijnath resident of the village at the spot.

5. The investigation of the case was conducted by the investigating officer and after conclusion of the investigation he submitted charge sheet against the accused in the Court.

6. The prosecution examined ten witnesses before trial Court, namely, PW-1 Rajdhar, PW-2 Ram Mantra, PW-3 Shanker Dayal, PW-4 Dr. M.K. Joshi, PW-5 Jahir Singh, PW-6 Jafar, PW-7 Atma Ram, PW-8 Nand Lal Singh, PW-9 Munna and PW-10 Risal Singh. The prosecution has proved Panchayatnama as Ext. Ka2 & Ka3, Recovery memo of blood stained pelletss as Ext. Ka4, Recovery memo of empty cartridge as Ext. Ka5, Recovery memo of blood stained and plain earth as Ext. Ka6, Written Report as Ext. Ka9, Postmortem Report as Ext. Ka18 & 19, Injury Report of Deopal as Ext. Ka20, Medico Legal Report as Ext. Ka21, Recovery Memo of D.B.B.L. Gun, Gartridge as Ext. Ka23, Charge-sheet Mool as Ext. Ka24, FIR as Ext. Ka26 & 27, Recovery memo of letter as Ext. Ka35, Recovery memo of Gun as Ext. Ka38, F.I.R. as Ext. Ka39, Report of Chemical Examiner as Ext. Ka43, Affidavit of Deopal as Ext. Ka48, Charge-sheet Mool as Ext. Ka49, as documentary evidence.

7. Learned Senior Counsel Shri G.S. Chaturvedi submits on behalf of the surviving appellant No.1 Mohan that the prosecution is said to have produced two eye witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2. He further submits that the injured witness Deopal is said to have suffered pellet injuries on his left arm has not been produced by the prosecution. However, the injured Deopal has been examined as Court witness as CW-1 and he has seen the occurrence but he has not supported the prosecution case. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the injured witness, who is supposed to be present at the place of occurrence has not supported the prosecution case, which renders the prosecution case doubtful.

8. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that on the same set of evidence, learned trial Court has acquitted Deen Dayal and Harishchandra, whereas the appellant no.1 Mohan and seven others have been convicted by the learned trial Court, for which, no cogent reason has been assigned.

9. Learned Senior Counsel submits that there are material improvements in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 in their statement before the Court and their presence at the place of occurrence is doubtful.

10. It is also submitted by learned Senior Counsel that PW-1 and PW-2 have not identified the accused in the Court and therefore, in view of the judgement of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Tukesh Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, passed in Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011 the appellant no.1 Mohan deserves to be acquitted of the charge.

11. Similarly, Shri Shashank Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Shri Rajeev Lochan Shukla, appearing on behalf of appellant nos. 7 and 8, namely, Chippoo @ Uma Shankar and Bhadela @ Kamlesh has adopted the arguments of learned Senior Counsel and has submitted that the eye witnesses have not identified the appellants Chippoo @ Uma Shankar and Bhadela @ Kamlesh and they are not involved in commission of the offences. He further submits that on the basis of the judgment of Honble Apex Court, they deserve to be acquitted.

12. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant no. 7 Chippoo @ Uma Shankar is shown to have been armed with farsa but there is no assault of farsa and there is no injury of farsa on the person of the deceased, namely, Sundar Lal and Satya Deo.

13. Shri Yogesh Narayan Shukla, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant no.9 Gyan Bhushan submits that the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence has not been proved by the eye witness. He further submits that the appellant Gyan Bhushan was not armed with any firearm as appellant no.9 Gyan Bhushan is said to have been armed with axe.

14. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that PW-1 was an accused in the murder of Chandrapal and he was acquitted in that case, therefore, this witness is highly inimical witness and the testimony of this witnesses has to be appreciated with greater care and caution.

15. Shri Yogesh Narayan Shukla, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant no.9 submits that the appellant Gyan Bhushan is alleged to have been armed with axe but there is no injury of axe on the person of the deceased. He further submits that PW-1 and PW-2 are highly inimical and interested witnesses and their presence at the place of occurrence is doubtful.

16. On the other hand, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant submit that simply because PW-1 and deceased Sunder Lal were accused in the murder of Chandrapal, it cannot be said that PW-1 is not believable. He submits that the testimony of inimical witness has to be scrutinized with greater care and caution. He further submits that the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 has passed the test of closer scrutiny and the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the surviving appellants beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that no overt act is proved against some of the appellants but their presence at the place of occurrence is proved and their case is covered by Section 149 IPC.

17. In the case of Rakshpal and Another vs. State of U.P. 2025 (2) ADJ 462 (DB), it was observed in paragraph no.24 as under: -

24. In a recent judgement rendered by Honble Apex Court in Neeraj Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2024) 3 SCC 125 in respect of importance of injured witness in a criminal trial, the Honble Apex Court has, in paragraphs 22 and 23, held as under:

22. The importance of injured witness in a criminal trial cannot be over stated. Unless there are compelling circumstances or evidence placed by the defence to doubt such a witness, this has to be accepted as an extremely valuable evidence in a criminal Trial.

23. In the case of Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355 this Court summed up the principles which are to be kept in mind when appreciating the evidence of an injured eye-witness. This court held as follows:

26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:

(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.

(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.

(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value passed in Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011 and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.

(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.

(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.

(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.

(Emphasis supplied)

18. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to take note of law laid down by Honble Apex Court in respect of reliability of testimony of injured witness, in the case of Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo vs The State Of Punjab, AIR 2024 SC 4810, paragraph no.12 and 13 whereof are quoted below:-

12. Also, it is worth indicating that P.W.3, P.W.4, and P.W.5 are injured witnesses or injured eye-witnesses in this case. The sworn testimonies provided by injuredwitnesses generally carry significant evidentiary weight. Such testimonies cannot be dismissed as unreliable unless there are pellucid and substantial discrepancies or contradictions that undermine their credibility. If there is any exaggeration in the deposition that is immaterial to the case, such exaggeration should be disregarded; however, it does not warrant the rejection of the entire evidence. Therefore, the suspicion raised by the appellants regarding the genesis of the case is rendered unfounded.

13. The abovementioned conclusion stands fortified with reference to paragraph 26 of the decision of this Court in Balu Sudam Khalde and another Vs. State of Maharashtra. The relevant passage is reproduced as under:

26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:

(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.

(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.

(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.

(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.

(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.

(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.

19. The first information report has been lodged promptly and PW-1, the informant Rajdhar has supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that Dev Pal and Ram Mantra, the witnesses are not of his party. He has further stated that he did not know as to whether Ram Kishore is a witness in a case under Section 307 IPC. This witness has further stated that he did not know that Sunder Lal was a pocket witness of the police and he had deposed in 4-6 cases registered by the police and he further stated that he knew that Sunder Lal is a witness in police encounter case.

20. We have gone through the entire testimony of PW-1 and we find that the testimony of PW-1 has not been shaken by the defence in his cross-examination. This witness has been consistent in his cross-examination and the defence has not been able to extract any material contradiction in the testimony of PW-1. Though there are some minor improvements and contradictions, which is quite possible as the testimony of this witness has been recorded in the Court after a considerable lapse of time.

21. We have also gone through the testimony of PW-2, who has supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief. In his cross-examination, though this witness has made some improvements that when the assailants reached the place of occurrence on alarm being raised by Rajdhar, Sundar and Satyadeo fell down but this is not material because so far as the material fact that the incident took place, in which, the deceased received firearm injuries caused by accused Gulbadan, Mohan, Kaira and Ramanuj.

22. This witness has also stated that he was being examined in the Court after four years of the incident, therefore, it is quite possible that he might have lost some memory. This witness has further stated that the accused persons came running and entered the barotha.

23. We have noticed that witness PW-2 has stated that he had told the Daroga that the dead body of the deceased were removed from the place of occurrence and kept by the side of road as the way was blocked for a moment. This improvement was made by PW-2 in his testimony and this is not of material nature. The injured eye witness Deo Pal was not produced by the prosecution. However, the learned trial Court examined the injured Deo Pal as Court witness but this injured Deo Pal has not supported the prosecution case.

24. It is quite possible that the injured Deo Pal might have been won over by the accused persons. PW-3 is the witness of inquest and he has proved the inquest of Satyadeo as Ext. Ka2 as a formal witness.

25. After closure of prosecution evidence the statements of appellants-accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which the accused persons denied their involvement in the case. The appellants accused also stated in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they were roped in this case due to enmity.

26. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments of prosecution and the defence and on perusal of the records passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence impugned.

27. In case of Tukesh Singh & others Vs. State of Chhattishgarh, passed in Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2011, paragraph no.5 whereof reads as under:-

5. He submitted that the account given by the eyewitnesses PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-8 of the incident differs in material particulars. He submitted that omnibus statements made by the witnesses regarding the involvement of the accused are not sufficient to bring home the prosecutions case. He pointed out that the eyewitnesses are related to each other and the deceased. Hence, they were interested witnesses. But, three independent eye-witnesses have not supported the prosecution. He pointed out that the depositions of the prosecution witnesses indicated that there were large number of independent witnesses present, as the incident happened in the market area. The learned senior counsel submitted that the evidence of the defence witness Dr Smt Subhadra Painkra (DW-1) established that accused no.9 (Ramesh Singh) was an injured patient in the hospital from 23rd March 2001 to 24th March 2001. She stated that even accused no.8 (Tamesh Singh) accompanied accused no.9 (Ramesh Singh) in the hospital.

28. In case of Thulia Kali Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 3 Supreme Court Cases 393, paragraph no.12 reads as under:-

12.First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of the spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained.

29. PW-4 Dr.M.K. Joshi has conducted the postmortem of the deceased Sundar Lal and we have noticed the firearm injuries on the person of the deceased Sundar Lal and Satya Deo. This witness has proved the postmortem report of the deceased Sundar Lal and in the opinion of this witness that the death of the deceased Sundar Lal could have taken place on 30.11.1979 at 01:30 P.M. The following injuries were found on his body:-

1- Entry mark of firearm 3 cm x 2-1/2 cm x across on left side of head in mastoid region just behind left ear, margins were inwards. with abrated collar blackening and tattooing present Direction - directly above left and to the right of injury The bone below the injury was broken Temporal parietal occipital.

2. Multiple gun shot wound of exit. In area of 4 cm x 2-1/2 cm x through & through each diameter x 1 cm x 1 cm. Contusion 4cmx1.5cm behind the right shoulder joint.

3. Firearm entry wound 4cm x 3 cm x chest cavity deep on front of Rt. Side of chest inner zone 3cm outwards from midline and 5-1/2 cm downwards and inwards Rt nipple at 4.1. O Clock position oval in shape edges bent inwards with abraded collar blackening & tattooing Direction- from front downwards and outwards Bone below the injury 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 All Ribs were broken.

4. Multiple gun shot wound of exit 9 in number in area of ​​18 cm x 12 cm x through & through to Inj. No 3 and anterior and lower part of right chest and abdomen extending from 9 cm below the Rt. Nipple at 6 O clock position and 5 cm below and lateral to Inj- No 3 is Rt. Lumber region and 4 cm above the illiac crest and 10 cm lateral to midline to mid axillary edge was bent outwards direction contralateral to entry injury No-3.

5. Firearm wound 1 cm x 1 cm x through deep to muscle on anterior side of right thigh in upper third of thigh 10cm below the inguinale region Edges turned inwards with abraded caller, No blackening and Tattooing present Direction- from front to back and outwards.

6. Entry run of fire weapon 1 cm x 1 cm x through to muscle deep on front side of right thigh 13 cm below the inguinal region and 3 cm below the Ing. No-5 Edges were bent inwards No Blackening and tattooing present Direction front to back and outwards Exit run of fire weapon 1-1/2 cm x 1 cm x through to outer side of right thigh 5 cm outside of injury No-7 Edges were bent outwards and direction parallel to entry of injury No-7.

Injuries of deceased Satya Deo are as follows:-

1. Entry wound of firearm 2-1/2cm x 2 cm x abdominal cavity deep on back side of abdomen on right side in lumber region which was just above mid line at level of L. 5 vertebra edges were bent inwards with abraded collar blackening tattooing present. Direction from back to front upwards and on right side. Bone below injury L-5 and Vertabra were broken. Spinal cord was torn.

2. Firearm exit run 1 cm x 1 cm x across from injury no.1 to the front of right side of abdomen in hypochondriac region 14 cm outward from mid line just below lower surface of twelfth rib with edges bent outward, direction parallel to entry of injury no.1.

3- Firearm entry run 1 cm x 1 cm x across from injury no.1 to the front of lower part of right chest 18 cm outward from mid line and 5 cm above injury no.2 and with edges bent outward, direction parallel to entry of injury no.1.

30. The death of the deceased Sundar Lal and Satya Deo could have taken place at 01:30 P.M. on 30.11.1979 in the opinion of PW-4 who has proved that the deceased, Sundar Lal and Satyadeo had received firearm injuries and the cause of their death was due to ante-mortem firearm injuries.

31. PW-5 is a formal witness and he has proved various police papers.

32. PW-6 is also a formal witness. This witness has witnessed recovery of gun. The prosecution has cross-examined this witness.

33. PW-7 has testified that he did not identify the co-accused Deen Dayal as considerable time has elapsed. The testimony of this witness is regarding co-accused Deen Dayal, who has already been acquitted by the learned trial Court and we are not considering any appeal against the said acquittal.

34. PW-8 Constable Nand Lal Singh is also a formal witness and he has proved the recovery of licensed gun from the co-accused Harishchandra, who has also been acquitted by the learned trial Court.

35. PW-9 is a witness, who has turned hostile. This witness has proved the recovery of gun and PW-10 is the investigating officer of the case, who has deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him and he has proved various prosecution paper. This witness in his cross-examination has stated that the witness Rajdhar (PW-1) has not told him that he was sitting on the first floor and was weighing flour for the feast and he hid himself.

36. We have appreciated the evidence available on record. We find that the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 are wholly reliable and that their testimony has been corroborated by the medical evidence. Though, the appellants PW-7 and PW-8, Chippoo @ Uma Shankar and Bhadela are said to be armed with farsa and appellant no.9 Gyan Bhushan is said to be armed with axe but there is no injury of farsa and axe on the person of the deceased but we find that the eye witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 have categorically stated that these appellants Chippoo @ Uma Shankar and Bhadela were present at the place of occurrence and they were members of unlawful assembly, therefore, their act is also covered under Section 149 of IPC as their presence at the place of occurrence, itself is sufficient to hold them liable for the offence.

37. On perusal of the judgment of learned trial Court, it transpires that learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence before it in right perspective and has arrived at the right conclusion, therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence impugned does not call for any interference by us.

38. We, therefore, find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against surviving appellants beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.

39. In view of the above, the appeal is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

40. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

41. The surviving appellants, namely, appellant nos.1 Mohan, appellant no.3 Rama Anuj, appellant no.4 Kaira, appellant no.7 Chippoo alias Umashanker, appellant no.8 Bhadela alias Kamlesh and appellant no.9 Gayan Bhooshan are directed to surrender before the trial Court within two weeks to serve their sentences as they are on bail.

42. Let a copy of this order be communicated by the Registrar (Compliance) to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karvi (Banda) for compliance forthwith.

43. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda is also directed to send his compliance report within one month to Court from the date of receipt of copy of the judgement.

44. Registrar General of this Court is also directed to pay an honorarium of Rs. 15,000/- to Shri Yogesh Narayan Shukla, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant no.9 for rendering effective assistance in the matter.

Order Date :- 08.09.2025

RKM