# Brijendra Singh & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1097
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1062 of 1989
- **Bench:** Siddharth, Vinai Kumar Dwivedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/brijendra-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-54695
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

4 All. Brijendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1097
19. Thus, on a bare perusal of aforesaid statutory provision for appeals under which present appeal
has been preferred by the prospective accused against whom an order on application under Section 173 (4)
BNSS for registration of case and investigation has been issued by learned Special Judge. It is obvious that
appeal shall not lie from any interlocutory order. This provision corresponds to the provisions of Section
397(2) CrPC, which provides that the powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised
in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.

20. From perusal of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Ambadkar vs. The
State of Maharashtra and others an inference may be drawn that High Court can quash an order passed on
application under Section 173(4) BNSS, in appropriate and exceptional cases, moved by a person aggrieved
by inaction of police officer or refusal on their part to record the information referred in sub-section (1) of
section 173, whereon, an order for registration of FIR and investigation by police is directed by filing a
petition under Section 482 CrP.C. or 528 BNSS on ground that the procedural requirements provided under
Section 173(4) and Section 175 (3) BNSS are not complied or on averments in the application, no cognizable
offense is made out as stated in para 31 of the judgment (supra) as said procedure, practices and safeguards
are introduced in aforesaid sections of BNSS to curb the misuse of invocation of powers of Magistrate by
unscrupulous litigants for achieving ulterior motives and Hon'ble Court has also enjoined a duty of
Magistrate to apply his mind judicially by considering both the complaints and submissions of police officer
thereby ensuring that requirement of passing reasoned order on application under Section 173(4) BNSS is
complied with in a more effective and comprehensive manner.

21. However, in the light of Full Bench pronouncements of this Court in Father Thomas (supra)
and Jagannath Verma and others (supra), the impugned order being interlocutory in nature, the
prospective accused is debarred from challenging the said order by way of filing a criminal revision or
statutory appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Act 1989. Consequently, the appeal preferred against
impugned order by prospective accused/appellant is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed at the
stage of admission.

22. Appeal is hereby dismissed.
---------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1097
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
THE HON'BLE VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1062 of 1989

Brijendra Singh & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
1098 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Matter pertains to legality of order of conviction u/s 302/34 if only ornamental role is assigned to the accused
concerned.

Headnotes
Common Intention-Indian Penal Code-Section 302/34--only surviving accused Appellant- assigned
only an ornamental role of exhortation-neither had any motive nor his participation been proved- dispute
between prosecution witness PW-3 and appellant no.1- Brijendra Singh (now deceased)- regarding the
agricultural land of deceased Bhuri Singh-for convicting u/s 302 IPC with the help of Section 34 IPC- there
must be a clear and definite finding based on cogent evidence. Appeal allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 1963 SCC Online SC 29

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860

List of Keywords
Common intention; prior concert; pre-planning; premeditation; presence; prior concert; afterthought.

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Raghuvansh Misra, Rahul Misra
Counsel for Respondent(s) :A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble 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,
4 All. Brijendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1099
resident of Nagariya, Police Station Sindhauli, whose in-laws (sasuarl) reside at Chhote Singh's
house in our village, had been looking after Bhuri Singhs 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 prosecution witnesses under Section 161 CrPC. He also
prepared the recovery memo of the torch and lantern as Exhibit Ka-2 in the presence of witnesses
and returned the same to them upon taking an undertaking that, when required, they would produce
the above articles.

7. The Investigating Officer, S.O. Rahat Singh (PW-7), collected blood-stained soil and
plain soil from the place of the incident. He also seized pellets, a blood-stained kathri (blanket) and
a charpai (cot), and prepared a recovery memo for these items, marked as Exhibit Ka-11. He then
conducted a raid at the house of the accused, Brij Raj Singh, son of Hanumant Singh, in an attempt
to recover the murder weapon (gun). However, the weapon was not found, and no other
incriminating items were recovered. A memo of these proceedings was prepared and marked as
Exhibit Ka-12.

8. The Investigating Officer, S.O. Rahat Singh (PW-7), prepared the site plan of the place
of occurrence. However, he was subsequently transferred from Police Station Bilsanda to another
location. Consequently, the charge sheet was filed by Sub-Inspector Lakhan Singh, which was
marked as Exhibit Ka-13, against the appellants, namely Brijendra Singh and Brij Raj Singh.

9. Prosecution witness Dr. A.K. Srivastava (PW-4) conducted the postmortem examination
of the deceased, Bhuri Singh and prepared the postmortem report, which was marked as Exhibit
Ka-3. According to the report, the following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the
deceased:-
1100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 "(i) A gunshot wound of entry 4 cm x 4 cm x chest cavity deep in left side of chest, 3 cm
from left nipple. Blackening & Tattooing present. Margins inverted. Oval in shape. Injury present
at 6'o clock position.

 (ii) Multiple gunshot wounds of exist in an area of 11cm x 6 cm in back of left side of
chest. It was situated 4 cm below the angle of the Scapula (shoulder blade), where semi-clotted
blood was present. This injury was related to injury number 1."

 According to the opinion of the Dr. A.K. Srivastava (PW-4), cause of death was shock
and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.

10. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, learned Magistrate
committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial. Charges were framed against the appellants by
the Trial Court on 14.07.1987, under section 302/34 IPC. Appellants denied from the charges and
claimed trial.

11. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined a total of seven witnesses, namely,
the informant Surat Singh (PW-1), Bhagwant Singh (PW-2), Jagannath Singh (PW-3), Dr. A.K.
Srivastava (PW-4), Omhari (PW-5), Rishi Pal Singh (PW-6), and Rahat Singh (PW-7). In addition
to the oral testimony, the prosecution also relied on documentary evidence marked as Exhibit Ka-1
to Exhibit Ka-14.

12. After the evidence of all prosecution witnesses was recorded, the appellants were
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellants denied the allegations levelled against them
and stated that they had been falsely implicated in the case due to prior enmity and at the
instigation and influence of Jagannath Singh (PW-3).The appellants further stated that the
informant Surat Singh (PW-1), was interested in acquiring the house of the deceased, Bhuri Singh,
while Jagannath Singh, the Pradhan, intended to acquire five acres of agricultural land belonging to
the deceased, situated in the same village. It was also contended that Brijendra Singh, being the
sole heir of Bhuri Singh, had been falsely implicated in the present case.

13. After hearing the arguments of both the prosecution and the defence, the learned Trial
Court, vide order dated 29.04.1989, held the appellants guilty of the alleged offence and convicted
and sentenced them to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC. Aggrieved by the said
judgment, the appellants have preferred the present criminal appeal before this Court.

14. During the pendency of the present criminal appeal, the appellant no. 1, Brijendra
Singh, has died. Accordingly, vide order of this Court dated 06.02.2026, the present criminal
appeal in respect of appellant no. 1, Brijendra Singh, stands abated. Hence, we are adjudicating the
present criminal appeal solely in respect of the surviving appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh.

15. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the surviving
appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh as well as the learned AGA appearing on behalf of the Staterespondent. We have also perused the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence
4 All. Brijendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1101
dated 29.04.1989 passed by the learned Trial Court and have also gone through the entire oral and
documentary evidence available on record.

16. The main thrust of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the surviving
appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh, is that the prosecution has assigned to him only an ornamental role
of exhortation. Brij Raj Singh neither had any motive nor has his participation been proved,
inasmuch as, appellant no. 1, Brijendra Singh (now deceased) belonged to a different village and
the prosecution evidence is inconsistent regarding his relationship with Brij Raj Singh. In the
F.I.R., it is stated that Brij Raj Singh and Brijendra Singh were friends, whereas the informant
(PW-1) has alleged that they were brothers. In any event, Brijendra Singh, who allegedly had a
motive to eliminate the deceased, did not require any exhortation from Brij Raj Singh to commit
the crime. It is further alleged that Brij Raj Singh kept PW-1 at gunpoint. If there was any motive,
it was stronger against PW-1, and had he been at gunpoint, he would not have been spared. There is
no evidence of any prior concert between Brijendra Singh and Brij Raj Singh so as to establish the
participation of Brij Raj Singh in the commission of the crime. Even if the prosecution evidence is
accepted at face value, the only allegation against the surviving appellant is that he exclaimed that
the opportunity was good. From the words allegedly uttered by Brij Raj Singh, it cannot be inferred
that his intention was to have the deceased murdered. Thus, the conviction of Brij Raj Singh with
the aid of Section 34 of the IPC is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the impugned
judgment and order dated 29.04.1989 passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside, and the
instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed.

17. Per contra, learned AGA on behalf of the State-respondent submitted that the name of
the surviving appellant, Brij Raj Singh, was mentioned in the written report (Exhibit Ka-1) by the
informant, Surat Singh (PW-1). He also submitted that, from the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses, including informant Surat Singh (PW-1), the presence of surviving appellant no. 2, Brij
Raj Singh, at the place of occurrence is clearly proved. Appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh exhorted
appellant no. 1, Brijendra Singh (now deceased), to utilize the opportunity by killing Bhuri Singh.
Upon this exhortation, appellant no. 1, Brijendra Singh (now deceased), fired a gunshot at Bhuri
Singh, who died on the spot. The Trial Court, after appreciating the prosecution evidence, found
ample role and evidence against the surviving appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh, justifying his
conviction under Section 302/34 IPC. The Trial Court properly appreciated the evidence, and there
is no illegality or perversity in the reasoning and findings given in the impugned judgment and
order dated 29.04.1989. Hence, the instant criminal appeal by the appellant lacks merit and is liable
to be dismissed.

18. In the light of the above arguments and counter arguments of both sides, we find that in
the written report (Exhibit Ka-1), the only role assigned to the surviving appellant no. 2, Brij Raj
Singh, was that he pointed a gun towards informant Surat Singh (PW-1) and exhorted appellant no.
1, Brijendra Singh (now deceased), to kill Bhuri Singh.

19. From a perusal of the evidence of the informant Surat Singh (PW-1), we find that PW-1
stated that appellants, Brijendra Singh and Brij Raj Singh had illegal guns in their hands. Upon
seeing them, he raised an alarm. Bhagwan Singh and Jagannath Singh arrived at the scene and lit
their torches. Thereupon, Brij Raj Singh stated that it was a good opportunity to utilize, following
1102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which Brijendra Singh fired a shot at Bhuri Singh. The shot hit him in the chest, and after receiving
the injury, he fell down. The accused then fled towards the north. From a perusal of the evidence of
informant Surat Singh (PW1), we further find that this witness testified regarding the enmity of the
appellant no. 1, Brijendra Singh (now deceased), towards the deceased, Bhuri Singh. This was
because the deceased, Bhuri Singh, owned 50-60 bighas of agricultural land and was issueless. The
appellant no. 1, Brijendra Singh (now deceased), wanted to take the land of the deceased, Bhuri
Singh, but Bhuri Singh did not want to give his land to him. Two years prior to this murder, Bhuri
Singh had executed a sale deed for his house in favour of the informant, PW-1. Due to which,
appellant no. 1, Brijendra Singh (now deceased), regarded enmity with the deceased, Bhuri Singh.

20. From an overall appreciation and perusal of the evidence of informant Surat Singh
(PW-1), it is apparent that there is not a single word stated in respect of the surviving appellant no.
2, Brij Raj Singh, suggesting any motive that would have impelled or forced him to assist and
exhort appellant no. 1, Brijendra Singh (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.

21. It is also a notable fact that, according to the informant, the surviving appellant no. 2,
Brij Raj Singh, pointed a gun at him, however, he spared the informants life and did not fire a
single shot, either in the air or at any person present at the place of occurrence. We find it difficult
to understand this peculiar circumstance as to why the surviving appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh,
would point a gun at the informant, Surat Singh (PW-1), and yet leave him unharmed, thereby
allowing him to remain a witness capable of deposing against him before the Court. In other words,
it appears improbable that the surviving accused, Brij Raj Singh, or any other accused person,
would intentionally spare an individual without causing harm, knowing well that such a person
could later testify against him in relation to the alleged offence.

22. Thus, upon a perusal of the evidence of the informant, Surat Singh (PW-1), it emerges
that there is no statement from which it can be inferred that the surviving appellant no. 2, 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 appellant no. 1, 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.

23. In the evidence of PW-1, there is not a single statement showing any intention or
motive that would have caused the surviving appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh, to assist appellant no.
1, Brijendra Singh (now deceased), or to be present at the place of occurrence with him. 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.
4 All. Brijendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1103
24. Further, it is also clearly established that there was a dispute between prosecution
witness Jagannath Singh (PW-3) and appellant no. 1, Brijendra Singh (now deceased), regarding
the agricultural land of deceased Bhuri Singh. It is further revealed that a case was pending
between Jagannath Singh (PW-3) and appellant no. 1, Brijendra Singh (now deceased), in respect
of the agricultural land of the deceased Bhuri Singh. It is also revealed that Jagannath Singh (PW3) has got executed a will from deceased Bhuri Singh in respect of his whole agricultural land in
his favor. Thus, surviving appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh had no enmity either from informant
Surat Singh (PW-1) or from the deceased Bhuri Singh. Enmity was found to be established from
the prosecution evidence between the appellant no. 1, Brijendra Singh (now deceased) and
Jagannath Singh (PW3). Jagannath Singh (PW-3), after the death of the deceased Bhuri Singh,
forcibly took possession of all the agricultural land of the deceased and began to cultivate the
whole land.

25. Thus, from the above discussion and perusal of the evidence of informant Surat Singh
(PW-1), we are of the considered opinion that the presence of the surviving appellant no. 2, Brij
Raj Singh, at the place of occurrence and also his involvement, in the commission of the alleged
crime is found to be highly suspicious and doubtful.

26. From a perusal of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, namely, Bhagwant Singh
(PW-2) and Jagannath Singh (PW-3), it is evident that both witnesses turned hostile and did not
support the prosecution case. Bhagwant Singh (PW-2) only stated that he had seen the appellants,
Brijendra Singh and Brij Raj Singh, running away. However, during cross-examination, the hostile
witness Bhagwant Singh (PW-2) admitted that Jagannath Singh is forcibly cultivating 5060
bighas of the deceased Bhuri Singh's agricultural land. Jagannath Singh (PW-3) clearly stated that
he did not witness the murder of Bhuri Singh and did not see the appellants committing the crime.

27. From a perusal of the evidence of Rishi Pal Singh (PW-6), it is revealed that this
witness is the son of informant, Surat Singh (PW-1). In his examination-in-chief, PW-6 reiterated
the same facts previously deposed by his father. During cross-examination, Rishi Pal Singh (PW-6)
stated that after Bhuri Singhs death, appellant no. 1, Brijendra Singh (now deceased), would be
the heir to the land, as Bhuri Singh had no issue. He further stated that following Bhuri Singh's
death, Jagannath Singh (PW-3) forcibly took possession of all of the deceased's land.

28. Thus, from a perusal of the evidence of Rishi Pal Singh (PW-6), it is apparent that there
is no statement in respect of the surviving appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh, explaining the reasons or
motive behind his participation or presence at the place of occurrence. It is further clear that as his
father, informant Surat Singh (PW-1), stated regarding the presence of surviving appellant no. 2,
Brij Raj Singh at the place of occurrence, PW-6 has also stated about the presence of the surviving
appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh at the place of occurrence, in the same manner.

29. Further, no pre-planned act, pre-concert plan, or criminal act has been revealed within
the evidence of Rishi Pal Singh (PW-6). Hence, it is apparent that with due consideration and
afterthought, the name of the surviving appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh, was added in the written
report (Exhibit Ka-1) by informant Surat Singh (PW-1). We have examined the findings and
reasoning given by the the Trial Court in this regard and find that, without properly discussing the
1104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
essential elements of Section 34 of the IPC, namely, pre-planning, premeditation, presence, and
prior concert with appellant no. 1, Brijendra Singh (now deceased), the Trial Court convicted the
surviving appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh, under Section 34 IPC solely on the basis of the statements
of Surat Singh (PW-1) and Rishi Pal Singh (PW-6).

30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 1963
SCC Online SC 29, has held in paragraph- 6 that:

 "........................... It is well settled that common intention within the meaning of the
section implied a pre-arranged plan and the criminal act was done pursuant to the prearranged
plan. The said plan may also develop on the spot during the course of the commission of the
offence; but the crucial circumstance is that the said plan must precede the act constituting the
offence. If that be so, before a court can convict a person under Section 302, read with Section 34,
of the Indian Penal Code, it should come to a definite conclusion that the said person had a prior
concert with one or more other persons, named or unnamed, for committing the said offence.
............"

31. 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.

32. The Trial Court solely on the basis of the evidence of informant Surat Singh (PW-1)
and his son, Rishi Pal Singh (PW-6), incorrectly held that surviving appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh
was guilty of the alleged offence. Both witnesses had only made statements that the surviving
appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh pointed a gun towards informant Surat Singh (PW-1), but did not
fire any shot at him or towards any other person present at the place of the incident. The Trial
Court, without keeping in mind this material fact and the ingredients of Section 34 IPC and without
giving any finding on this point, has wrongly held the surviving appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh
guilty for the commission of the alleged crime. Thus, we find force in the argument of learned
counsel for surviving appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh in this respect.

33. In view of the above discussions, we find that the conviction of the surviving appellant
no. 2, Brij Raj Singh, in the present case is not supported by any reliable evidence. The
involvement of Brij Raj Singh in the commission of the alleged crime is, therefore, highly doubtful
and suspicious. We also find that his presence at the place of occurrence is very uncertain, as there
is no evidence showing any motive or reason for him to be there with appellant no. 1, Brijendra
Singh (now deceased).
4 All. Pitambar Das Vs. State of U.P.
1105
34. Thus, we find that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
29.04.1989, passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, in respect of the
surviving appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh, is not supported by any cogent evidence and is contrary
to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Govind Patil (supra). In light of
the above discussions, we hold that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence
dated 29.04.1989, insofar as it relates to the surviving appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh, is not
sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside.

35. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and
sentence 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, in respect of
surviving appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh. Consequently, the present criminal appeal is allowed.

36. The surviving appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh, is on bail and he need not surrender. His
bail bonds are cancelled, and the sureties are discharged from their liabilities.

37. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Trial Court along with the lower court
record forthwith for necessary compliance.
---------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1105
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1235 of 1988

Pitambar Das ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether conviction of the appellant under Ss. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
could be sustained in absence of proof of violation of any control order or any provision of S. 3 of the Act,
1955 and whether there was compliance of S. 7(1)(b) of the Act. (Paras 26-31)

Headnotes
Criminal Law - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Conviction under Ss. 3/7 - Requirement of
contravention of control order - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Ss. 3 and 7 - S. 3 is an
enabling provision and penalty under S. 7 is attracted only when there is violation of a control
order or any provision made under S. 3 - Prosecution failed to mention any control order alleged
to have been violated and failed to establish contravention by the appellant - Conviction
unsustainable and liable to be set aside. (Paras 26-31)
Criminal Law - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Mens rea - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 -
Ss. 3 and 7 - Mens rea is an essential ingredient and prosecution must establish intentional