PARGAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Prakhar Saran Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant nos. 1 & 4, Sri K.P.S. Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant nos. 5, 6 & 9, Sri Vijay Shantam, Amicus Curiae and Sri Satendra Nath Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State-Respondent.

(2.) The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgement and order dtd. 16/8/1985 whereby the Appellant No.1, Pargan Singh, Appellant no.2, Ram Murat Singh @ Sheo Murat Singh, Appellant No.3, Doctor Singh, Appellant No.4, Mangala Singh, Appellant No.5, Raj Nath Yadava, Appellant No.6, Sheshnath, Appellant No.7, Naresh, Appellant No.8, Ram Briksh, Appellant No.9, Param Hans, Appellant No.10, Amar Deo, Appellant No.11, Sobran, Appellant No.12, Bhorick and Appellant No.13, Bhukhal were convicted for the offences under Sec. 307 read with Sec. 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The Appellant No. 13, Bhukal was also convicted for the offence under Sec. 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. The Appellant No.1, Pargan Singh, Appellant No.2, Ram Murat Singh alias Shio Murat Singh, Appellant No.3, Doctor Singh, Appellant No.4, Mangala Singh, Appellant No.5, Raj Nath Yadava, Appellant No. 6, Shesh Nath, Appellant No. 7, Naresh, Appellant No.8, Ram Briksh, Appellant No.9, Param Hans, Appellant No.10, Amar Deo, Appellant No.11, Sobran and Appellant No.12, Bhorick were also convicted for the offences under Sec. 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment. The Appellant No.14, Bhadra Narain Singh, who was found guilty for the offence under Sec. 30 of the Arms Act, was sentenced to undergo two months' imprisonment.

(3.) During the pendency of the appeal, Appellants No. 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 had died and the appeal on their behalf was abated. The Appellant No. 2, Ram Murat alias Shio Murat Singh has also died. An application on behalf of the legal representatives (LRs) of the Appellant No.2 was moved under Sec. 394 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by this Court vide order dtd. 19/8/2025 and his LRs were permitted to contest the conviction of the Appellant No.2 and the said LRs were represented by the Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court.