Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTH, VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, JJ.
Brijendra Singh and others – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. –Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1062 of 1989
Decided On : 09-04-2026
Key Points: - The Court held that conviction under Section 302/34 IPC requires clear evidence of prior concert and motive; lacking in this case, leading to setting aside the conviction of the surviving appellant. (!) (!) - The surviving appellant Brij Raj Singh’s presence, participation, and motive were found doubtful; evidence did not establish prior concert or precursors to the crime. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The judgment set aside the impugned conviction and sentence against Brij Raj Singh (surviving appellant 2) and allowed the criminal appeal regarding him. (!) - The trial court’s reliance on the informant’s and PW-6’s statements for conviction was found improper; no cogent evidence of prior concert or motive. (!) (!) - The appellant Brijendra Singh (deceased) was not the subject of this final judgment due to abatement; only Brij Raj Singh’s case was adjudicated. (!) (!) - The Court directed transmission of the judgment to the Trial Court for compliance. (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal appeal process initiated. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. factual summary of the case. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. defense arguments presented. (Para 12 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. court's analysis of evidence and testimonies. (Para 15 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 25 , 28) |
| 5. legal requirements for conspiracy under section 34 ipc. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 6. conclusion to overturn conviction. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
Judgment :
Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, J.
1. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for surviving appellant no. 2; Sri. G.N. Kanaujiya, learned A.G.A.-I on behalf of the State; perused the judgment and the Trial Court record.
2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants, namely, Brijendra Singh and Brij Raj Singh, against the judgment and order dated 29.04.1989 passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, in Sessions Trial No. 282 of 1985 ( State vs. Brijendra Singh and another ), arising out of Case Crime No. 127 of 1985, under Section 302/34 IPC, Police Station Bilsanda, District Pilibhit.
3. By the impugned judgment and order dated 29.04.1989, the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit convicted the appellants and sentenced them to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the appellants have preferred the present criminal appeal.
4. On the basis of a written report (Exhibit Ka-1) dated 24.06.1985, a first information report (Exhibit Ka-14) was registered at Police Station Bilsanda, District Pilibhit, on 24.06.1985 at 6:30 A.M., as Case Crime No. 127 of 1985, under Section 302 IPC, against the appellants, namely, Brijendra Singh and Brij Raj Singh.
5. The brief facts of the prosecution case revealed from the written report (Exhibit Ka-1) are that informant Surat Singh (PW-1) stated in his tahreer that in my village, Bhuri Singh, son of Umray Singh, had no children. His nephew (sister's son), Brijendra Singh, son of Kadher Singh, resident of Nagariya, Police Station Sindhauli, whose in-laws (sasuarl) reside at Chhote Singh's house in our village, 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 my name. Due to this, Brijendra regarded grudge against me. He had stated several times that the land could only be acquired by killing Bhuri Singh. Based on this enmity, the incident occurred at approximately 1:00 A.M. at night. Bhuri Singh, my son Rishi Pal Singh, and I were lying in the courtyard talking amonth themselves. There was light from a lantern. Suddenly, Brijendra Singh and his friend Brij Raj Singh, son of Hanumant Singh, entered the house armed with guns from the north side. Brij Raj Singh is a resident of our village. Brij Raj Singh aimed his weapon at me and shouted, 'Kill them quickly, this is a good opportunity.' I raised an alarm, shouting "Save me! Save me!" Hearing the noise, Bhagwant Singh, son of Jangi Singh and Jagannath Singh, son of Bhudar Singh, arrived while flashing their torches. Right then, Brijendra Singh fired at Bhuri Singh with his illegal firearm. The bullet hit Bhuri Singh. After the shooting, Brijendra Singh and Brij Raj Singh fled toward the north. Bhuri Singh passed away on the spot, his body is currently at the house.
6. After registration of the first information report (Exhibit Ka-14), and upon receiving information about the alleged murder, the Investigating Officer, S.O. Rahat Singh (PW-7), reached the place of occurrence with the police party. PW-7 took the investigation of the case in his hands. PW-7 inspected the place of occurrence. He got the necessary police papers prepared and the panchayatnama of the deceased prepared by S.I. Dan Singh. He also got the dead body of the deceased Bhuri Singh sealed and sent it for postmortem examination. PW-7 recorded the statements of the informant and other prosecut
Conviction under Section 34 IPC requires clear evidence of prior concert and motive, which was lacking in this case, leading to a reversal of the conviction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and contradictions and doubts in the evidence can lead to the f....
Point of Law : Common object of unlawful assembly to kill the deceased - minor variance in the statement of maker of first information report should not lead to conclude that first information report....
(1) Murder – Delay in forwarding FIR to jurisdictional Magistrate is not fatal to prosecution case – If investigation starts in right earnest and there is sufficient material on record to show that a....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any inconsistencies or doubts in the prosecution's case may lead to an acquittal.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete chain, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt without any missing links.
The conviction for murder was overturned due to significant doubts arising from procedural delays, witness credibility issues, and insufficient evidence meeting the standard of proof beyond reasonabl....
Point of Law : A wife, who has seen an assailant giving fatal blows with a stick to her husband, would name the assailant to all present and to the police at an earliest opportunity.
The Court affirmed that for conviction under Section 34 IPC, both common intention and premeditation must be proven, which were established beyond doubt in this case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
