While setting aside the conviction in a 1985 murder case, the Allahabad High Court has held that for convicting any person under Section 302 IPC with the help of Section 34 IPC, there must be a clear and definite finding based on cogent evidence available on record that the accused persons had a prior concert for the commission of the crime.

The High Court was considering a criminal appeal preferred by the appellants, against the judgment convicting and sentencing them to life imprisonment under Sections 302,34 of the IPC.

The Division Bench of Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi and Justice Siddharth held, “Thus, in the light of the above legal principle as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that for convicting any person under Section 302 IPC with the help of Section 34 IPC, there must be a clear and definite finding based on cogent evidence available on record that appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh had prior concert with appellant no. 1, Brijendra Singh for commission of the crime. This finding must establish that the accused person had a prior concert with one or other persons for the commission of the crime. In the present case at hand, it is clear from a perusal of the findings and reasoning as given by the Trial Court that there are no discussion or findings about the fact that surviving appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh had prior concert with appellant no. 1, Brijendra Singh (now deceased) for the commission of the alleged crime.”

Advocate Raghuvansh Misra represented the Appellant.

Factual Background

The informant stated that one Bhuri Singh had no children. His nephew (sister's son), Brijendra Singh, son of Kadher Singh, had been looking after Bhuri Singh’s farming for a long time. Brijendra Singh repeatedly pressured his maternal uncle (Bhuri Singh) to transfer the land and property to his name. However, Bhuri Singh executed a sale deed for his house in the informant’s name. It was alleged that, based on enmity, the incident occurred where Brijendra Singh and his friend Brij Raj Singh entered the house armed with guns and fired at Bhuri Singh with his illegal firearm. The bullet hit Bhuri, and he passed away on the spot. Charges were framed against the appellants by the Trial Court under sections 302 and 34 of the IPC. The Trial Court held the appellants guilty of the alleged offence.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the evidence of the informant, the Bench noted that there was not a single word stated in respect of the surviving appellant Brij Raj Singh, suggesting any motive that would have impelled or forced him to assist and exhort the first appellant (now deceased), to kill the deceased, Bhuri Singh. “We find that the only reference, in simple words, which appears to be an afterthought and concocted with a view to implicate the surviving appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh, regarding his presence at the place of occurrence along with appellant no. 1, Brijendra Singh (now deceased), appears to be false, fabricated, and artificial”, it added.

Referring to the evidence of the informant, the Bench noted that there was no statement from which it could be inferred that the surviving appellant, Brij Raj Singh, was present at the place of occurrence with premeditation, pursuant to a prearranged plan, or with any criminal intent at the time of the commission of the offence by the first appellant, Brijendra Singh. “Further, from the testimony of this witness, we find no material on record to establish that the surviving appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh, had prior concert with appellant no. 1, Brijendra Singh, for the commission of the alleged offence”, it held.

The Bench further stated, “It is a settled principle of law that, without a motive or reason, no person would take part in a heinous crime like murder. A perusal of the entire evidence of informant Surat Singh (PW-1) shows that there is no evidence oral or documentary that Brij Raj Singh, by his own motive or desire, participated in the crime or was present at the place of occurrence.”

Thus, holding that the involvement of the appellant Brij Raj Singh in the commission of the alleged crime was highly doubtful and suspicious, the Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed against him.

Cause Title: Brijendra Singh v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:77353-DB)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Raghuvansh Misra, Rahul Misra

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Vinai Kumar DwivediJustice Siddharth

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.