# Ram Bharosey v. State

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 105
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2157 of 1989
- **Bench:** Salil Kumar Rai, Vinai Kumar Dwivedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-bharosey-v-state-52785
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

12 All. Ram Bharosey Vs. State
105
were working in the fields and the deceased
suffered ante mortem injuries, on account of
which, he died on the spot. The blood stained
spade (kudal) and it's handle (beint) alongwith
blood stained mud was recovered from the
spot. Thus, this Court is of the view that it
cannot be said to be a case falling under
Section 302 I.P.C. but under Section 304 PartII I.P.C., therefore, the conviction of the
appellants under Section 302 I.P.C. read with
Section 34 I.P.C. and sentence under Section
302 I.P.C. is not sustainable and it is liable to
be converted under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C.
read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentence under
Section 304 Part-II I.P.C.

(42) The appellants were enlarged on bail
in the year 2004 and they were also on bail
during trial. The incident had taken place
about 26 years back and both the appellants
are alive. They must be of about 55 years of
age and nothing has been brought before this
Court to show that they have misused the
liberty granted by this Court. Section 304 PartII I.P.C. provides imprisonment for either
description, which may extend to ten years, or
with fine, or with both. This Court is of the
view that the conviction is to be made under
Section 304 Part-II I.P.C., therefore, no
purpose would be served by sending the
appellants in jail again. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Shyamlal and Others; (2025) 4
SCC 616, declined to interfere in the judgment
of High Court and the sentence of undergone
under Section 304 I.P.C. read with Section 149
I.P.C., as the substantial amount of Rs.16,000/-
each was imposed by the High Court by way
of fine and the incident had taken place about
28 years back, when the High Court had
passed the said order.

(43) In view of above and considering the
over all facts and circumstances of the case,
the conviction and sentence of the appellant
No.1-Phool Chandra and appellant No.2Harish Chandra under Section 302 I.P.C. is
set-aside. The appellant No.1-Phool Chandra
and appellant No.2-Harish Chandra are
convicted for an offence under Section 304
Part-II I.P.C. read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
and they are sentenced equivalent to the period
already
undergone
alongwith
fine
of
Rs.50,000/- each. In case of default of
payment of fine, appellant Nos.1 and 2 shall
have
to
undergo
one
year's
rigorous
imprisonment. The conviction and sentence
awarded to the appellants No. 1 and 2 under
Section 506 I.P.C. remains unaltered and are
confirmed.

(44) Out of the aforesaid fine as well as
the fine under Section 506 I.P.C. awarded by
the learned trial Court, Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh) shall be paid to the legal heirs of
the deceased.

(45) With the aforesaid, the appeal is
partly allowed.

(46) Let the original record of trial Court
and a copy of this judgment be transmitted to
the Court concerned for information and
compliance forthwith.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 105
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2157 of 1989

Ram Bharosey ...Appellant
Versus
State ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Applicability of sec 34 IPC

Headnotes
Sections 302 Indian penal Code-prosecution
totally unsuccessful to prove the pre-plan,
premeditation and participation-Appellant was
purposely and intentionally implicated-due to
jealousy and revenge-no person could be held
guilty for the commission of the crime-only by
presence at the time of incident-role of the
appellant-not
proved-main
ingredients
of
Section 34 IPC not established.
Appeal allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Suresh Sakharam Nam Gare Vs. State of
Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 239
2. Criminal Appeal No.355 of 2023 Constable
Surendra Singh and another Vs. State of
Uttarakhand, decided on 28.01.2025
3. Criminal Appeal No. 1209 of 2011 Chandra
Pratap Singh Vs. State of M.P., decided on
09.10.2023

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860

List of Keywords
Pre-plan; premeditation or prior meeting of
minds; Section 34 IPC

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ardhendu Shekhar
Sharma, Ram Babu Sharma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : D.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinai Kumar
Dwivedi, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Ram Babu Sharma,
Counsel assisted by Mr. Ardhendu Shekhar
Sharma,
Counsel
for
the
surviving
appellant no.2 and Mr. Nagendra Kumar
Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present criminal appeal has
been preferred by the accused appellant
No.2 - Raj Bala against the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated
04.11.1989, passed by the IVth Additional
Sessions Judge Bulandshahar in Sessions
Trial No. 175 of 1986, arising out of Case
Crime No.707 of 1985, under Sections
302/34, 307/34, 323/34 IPC, Police Station
- Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar,
whereby the accused - appellant no.2- Raj
Bala has been convicted and sentenced to
life imprisonment under Section 302/34
IPC. The accused- appellant no.2- Raj Bala
has also been convicted and sentenced for
three years rigorous imprisonment under
Section 307/34 IPC.

3. As per F.I.R. version on 10.11.1985
at 05.30 P.M. accused Ram Bharosey,
accused Smt. Rajbala and accused Km.
Geeta were quarreling with Smt. Kaushalya
and showering abuses on her in the courtyard situated in front of their house.
Hearing the noise several neighbours
including
Dharmpal
Singh
(P.W.1),
Mahendra Pal Singh (deceased), Kailash
(P.W.2), Deen Dayal s/o Mahendra Pal
Singh, Shish Pal s/o Natthan Singh &
others reached there and tried to intervene
in the matter in order to pacify them. In the
meantime accused Geeta gave a Danda
blow at the head of Smt. Kaushalya and
accused
Kunwarpal
Singh,
Advocate
brought licenced rifle of Ram Bharosey and
a country made pistol from the room of
Ram Bharosey situated at the first floor of
his house, and gave country made pistol to
Smt.
Rajbala
and
rifle
to
accused
Rambharosey. Accused Kunwarpal Singh
while giving arms to Ram Bharosey and
Smt. Rajbala told them to wipe out her
(Smt. Kaushalya) and her supporters of the
locality and to finish the quarrel once and
for all (ROJ ROJ KA JHANJHAT
KHATAM KAR DO). Ram Bharosey fired
shot from his rifle and killed Mahendra Pal
Singh on the spot. Smt. Rajbala fired from
the country made pistol, the pellets of
which hit PW.2 Kailash and caused injuries
12 All. Ram Bharosey Vs. State
107
to him. Dharm Pal Singh, Kailash & others
tried to apprehend Ram Bharosey Smt.
Rajbala, Kunwarpal and Km. Geeta, but
Rambharosey fired shots from rifle to score
away Dharmpal, Kailash & others and ran
way along with Smt. Rajbala & others
accused.

4. On the basis of the above-mentioned
report, a case was registered as case crime No.
707 of 1985 under Sections 302, 307, 323 IPC
which was proved as Exhibit Ka-17.

5. After registration of the FIR,
Investigation Officer, Dhannu Singh Yadav,
PW-6
started
investigation.
After
investigation, PW-6 prepared site plan,
recorded the statement of witnesses and after
completion
of
all
the
formalities
of
investigation, he submitted charge-sheet to the
concerned Magistrate Court.

6. Since the case was triable by the
Sessions Court, learned Magistrate committed
the case to the Sessions Court.

7. The charge-sheet was filed under
Sections 302/307/323 IPC. The charge was
framed against Ram Bharosey, Smt. Raj Bala,
Geeta and Kunwar Pal Singh under Sections
302/34, 307/34, 323/34 IPC and all accused
including sole survival accused Raj Bala
denied from the charge and they claimed trial.

8. In the present case, PW-1 Dharam Pal,
PW-2 Kailash, PW-3 Kaushalya Devi, PW-4
Dr. P.C. Agrawal, PW-5 Jail Singh, PW-6
Dhannu Singh Yadav and PW-7 S.K. Jaiswal,
are the prosecution witnesses. In defence, they
also produced LK Rastogi - DW-1 as defence
witness.

9. After completing the evidence of all
the prosecution witnesses, incriminating
circumstances culled out from the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses which were
put before the appellant and thereafter,
statement of the accused-appellant was
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

10. After recording of the statement of
the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the
defence also produced the oral and
documentary evidences in the Trial Court.

11. Learned Trial Court after perusing
all the evidence including oral and
documentary, held the accused, namely,
Ram Bharosey, Smt. Raj Bala and Kunwar
Pal Singh guilty under Sections 302/34 IPC
and convicted and sentenced them for life
imprisonment. The accused were also
sentenced
for
three
years
rigorous
imprisonment for the offence under Section
307/34 IPC. Accused Ram Bharosey,
Kunwar Pal Singh and Smt. Raj Bala were
not found guilty under Section 323/34 IPC.
The accused Km. Gita was also not found
guilty for the offence punishable under
Section 302/34, 307/34 IPC and she was
acquitted thereunder, however, she was
found guilty for the offence punishable
under Section 323 IPC and she was
released after due admonition.

12. Aggrieved by the judgment and
order dated 4.11.1989 passed in Session
Trial No.175 of 1986 (State vs. Ram
Bharosey and others) convicting the
accused-appellant, they have filed the
present criminal appeal before this Court.

13. During pendency of the present
criminal appeal, accused Ram Bharosey
and Kunwar Pal Singh died. Accused-Smt.
Raj Bala survives. The instant criminal
appeal qua Ram Bharosey and Kunwar Pal
Singh was dismissed as having abated vide
order dated 16.10.2025 passed by this
Court. Therefore, the present criminal
108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appeal survives only on behalf of surviving
appellant - Raj Bala.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that Trial Court has misread and
misinterpreted
the
evidence,
thereby,
wrongly holding the appellant guilty. The
trial court erred by convicting an accused
based solely on their physical presence,
without sufficient corroborating evidence.
Accused - Raj Bala was wrongly held
guilty under Section 302/34 and 307/34
IPC. Learned counsel further submitted that
as per prosecution story, appellant- Raj
Bala fired from the country made pistol
(katta) on Kailash but in injury report
which is Exhibit Ka-20, prepared by Dr.
S.K. Jaiswal - PW-7, no grievous injury
and fire arm injury was found. In the injury
report of Kailash (Exhibit Ka-20), all the
injuries which were found on the body of
Kailash were caused by hard and blunt
object. PW-7, Dr. S.K. Jaiswal, who
prepared the injury report was also not
confirmed about injury no.1 of Kailash.
PW-7 stated in his evidence that injury
no.1 of Kailash could have been caused
by fire arms or could not have been
caused by fire arms. Meaning thereby,
PW-7 was not sure about injury no.1 of
Kailash. The circumstances in this case
are far from conclusive and a conclusion
of guilt could not be drawn when no fire
arm injury was caused to Kailash.
Appellant- Raj Bala has not participated
in the crime but Trial Court by wrongly
appreciating the prosecution evidence
held the appellant - Raj Bala guilty. It
has also been argued by learned counsel
for
the
appellant-
accused
that
prosecution has not proved the fact of
pre-plan, premeditation and participation
of the appellant in the commission of
crime. The prosecution has completely
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. There is no cogent and clinching
evidence to implicate the appellantaccused.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that because of no fire
arm injury was found on the body of
Kailash, therefore, participation in the
crime by the appellant was totally false
and unproven by the prosecution. If
participation of the appellant was not
proved by the evidence of prosecution,
then in this situation pre-planning and
premeditation against the appellant could
not be presumed by learned Trial Court.
Merely by presence at the scene of
occurrence, the appellant could not be
held guilty and convicted for the crime.

16. Learned counsel for the appellant
relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex
Court in Criminal Appeal No.355 of 2023
Constable 907 Surendra Singh and
another Vs. State of Uttarakhand,
decided
on
28.01.2025
as
well
as
Criminal Appeal No. 1209 of 2011
Chandra Pratap Singh Vs. State of M.P.,
decided on 09.10.2023.

17. Learned A.G.A. for the State
submitted that the evidence produced by
prosecution in the Trial Court is sufficient
to prove the guilt of the accused - appellant
Raj Bala for the commission of the crime.
He further submitted that from the evidence
of prosecution witnesses, Dharam Pal,
Kailash, Kaushalya Devi and PW-7, S.K.
Jaiswal, facts of participation by the
appellant, Raj Bala in the commission of
the crime has been fully proved by the
prosecution.

18. The Trial Court by perusing the
prosecution
evidence
has
found
the
evidence of participation, pre-planning and
12 All. Ram Bharosey Vs. State
109
premeditation of the appellant- Raj Bala in
the commission of crime. In view of the
above facts and evidences, the Trial Court
has rightly held guilty and convicted the
appellant- Raj Bala under Section 302/34,
307/34 IPC, hence, criminal appeal filed by
appellant is liable to be rejected.

19. In view of the above arguments of
both sides, we have gone through all
prosecution evidence. As per written report,
Exhibit Ka-1, appellant- Raj Bala fired a shot
at Kailash by country-made pistol katta
(tamancha). These facts were stated in their
evidence by prosecution witnesses, namely,
Dharam Pal (PW-1), Kailash (PW-2) and
Kaushalya Devi (PW-3) but when we have
perused the injury report of Kailash, which is
Exhibit- Ka 20 on the record, all the injuries
were found simple in nature and caused by
hard and blunt object. All the injuries except
injury No.1 were simple. X-ray of right
shoulder was advised. The injuries which
were found on the person of Kailash - PW2
are as follows :-

"1. Two lacerated wounds 1/2
c.m. apart measuring 3/4 c.m. x muscle
deep, each, on front of right shoulder /
Advised X ray right shoulder.

2. Abrasion 11/2 cm. X 1/4 c.m.,
on top of right shoulder under 5 c.m.
medial to tip of shoulder.

3. Abrasion 3/4 c.m. x 3/4 c.m.,
on top of right shoulder.

4. Abrasion 1/4 c.m. x 1/4 c.m. on
front of left side chest 61/2 c.m. below the
inner end of left coller bone.

5. Abrasion 1/4 c.m. x 1/4 c.m. on
right side of face head 3 c.m. above on
right eye brow.\

Opinion - All the injuries are
caused by hard and blunt object. Fresh in
duration and simple in nature. Except
injury
no.
1
which
is
kept
under
observation and for which advised x-ray Rt.
Shoulder."

20. PW-7 - Dr. S.K. Jaiswal, who
prepared the injury report of Kailash, which
is Exhibit Ka-20, has clearly stated that
except injury no.1, all the other injuries
were simple in nature and all the injuries
were caused by hard and blunt object. PW7 himself was not sure that injury no.1 was
caused by fire arm or not. Due to the
confusion, PW-7 advised for x-ray of injury
no.1. In his cross-examination, PW-7
accepted that injury no.1 of Kailash can be
caused by lathi. X-ray report of Kailash are
not before him. Thus, from the evidence of
PW-7, Dr. S.K. Jaiswal who prepared the
injury report of injured Kailash, it is amply
clear that there was no injury from fire arm
on the body of Kailash PW-2. Therefore,
the evidence of PW-7, Dr. S.K. Jaiswal has
not proved the prosecution story against the
appellant
that
she
fired
from
katta
(tamancha) upon Kailash.

21. No X-ray was done of injured
Kailash for injury no.1 as advised by PW-7,
Dr. S.K. Jaiswal. In the cross- examination,
injured Kailash, PW-2 has clearly stated
that X-ray of his injury has not been done.

22. In his cross-examination, PW-2
Kailash has accepted that report was
written by Arjun Singh on the advice of
Dharam Pal, Jail Singh, Kaushalya Devi.
15 to 20 minutes time were spent in advice
and consultation.

23. Learned Trial Court has not given
any attention to this fact and evidence as
available on the record. No fire arm injury
110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was found on the body of injured Kailash -
PW-2, then in this situation, it could not be
presumed that appellant - Raj Bala has fired
a shot from katta (tamancha) upon Kailash.
Due to this reason and contradiction in oral
evidence of Kailash - PW-2 regarding his
injury report (Exhibit Ka-20) and evidence
of PW-7 - Dr. S.K. Jaiswal, in this regard,
prosecution story, as alleged by the
prosecution against the appellant- Raj Bala,
is totally doubtful and suspicious.

24. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Suresh Sakharam Nam Gare Vs. State of
Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 239 has held
in para 21 and 22 that :-

"21. Since the conviction of the
appellant is based only with the aid of
Section 34 IPC, it is useful to refer the
same:

"34. Acts done by several persons
in furtherance of common intention. When
a criminal act is done by several persons in
furtherance of the common intention of all,
each of such persons is liable for that act in
the same manner as if it were done by him
alone.

A reading of the above provision
makes it clear that to apply Section 34.
apart from the fact that there should be two
or more accused, two factors must be
established: (i) common intention, and (i)
participation of the accused in the
commission of an offence. It further makes
clear that if common intention is proved but
no overt act is attributed to the individual
accused, Section 34 will be attracted as
essentially it involves vicarious liability but
if participation of the accused in the crime
is proved and common intention is absent,
Section 34 cannot be invoked. In other
words, it requires a prearranged plan and
presupposes prior concert, therefore, there
must be prior meeting of minds.

22. We have already referred to
the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
Nobody
has
implicated
the
present
appellant except the statements made by
PW 5 and PW 7 (the approver). We are
satisfied that absolutely there is no
material from the side of the prosecution to
show that the present appellant had any
common
intention
to
eliminate
the
deceased, who was physically disabled. The
only adverse thing against the present
appellant is that he used to associate with
A-1 for smoking ganja. In the absence of
common intention, we are of the view that
convicting the appellant with the aid of
Section 34 IPC cannot be sustained."

25. In the light of law as laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court, we found that
prosecution was totally unsuccessful to
prove the pre-plan, premeditation and
participation of the accused- appellant - Raj
Bala. Prosecution was unable to prove this
fact that appellant - Raj Bala had preplanned or pre-determined in this crime.
Evidence of prosecution shows that there
was
no
preparation,
intention
or
premeditation by appellant- Raj Bala.
Appellant - Raj Bala was living with
accused- Ram Bharosey as his paramour as
alleged by the prosecution. From this, it
appears that due to this reason of jealousy
and for the revenge, appellant - Raj Bala
was purposely and intentionally implicated
by the prosecution in the commission of the
alleged crime. Only by presence at the time
of incident, no person could be held guilty
for the commission of the crime. The
appellant - Raja Bala was living on the first
floor of the house of accused- Ram
Bharosey and she was living with accused-
Ram Bharosey prior to the happening of
12 All. Ram Bharosey Vs. State
111
this incident. It emerges from the evidence
and also from the circumstances of this
case that appellant - Raj Bala was
implicated in the incident only due to
jealousy and revenge. This is also the fact
that role of the appellant - Raj Bala was not
proved in the commission of crime as
alleged by the prosecution.

26. In the facts and circumstances of
the case as well as the law as laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above case
law, we find that prosecution was unable to
prove the fact that appellant - Raj Bala has
any
pre-plan
or
premeditation
for
participation in the crime. We also find that
participation of the accused- Raj Bala in socalled commission of the crime is doubtful
and suspicious. The role, as assigned by the
prosecution against appellant- Raj Bala,
could not be proved by the prosecution by
the evidence of Kailash - PW-2 and Dr.
S.K. Jaiswal - PW-7, who prepared the
injury report (Exhibit Ka-20) of Kailash
that itself falsifies the prosecution story as
alleged by the prosecution. Thus, from
perusal of the prosecution evidence as a
whole, we find that firing by appellant- Raj
Bala by katta (tamancha) upon Kailash is
highly doubtful and contradictory to the
medical evidence. It appears that to
strengthen and to give force into the case of
prosecution, prosecution projected this
story of firing by appellant- Raj Bala upon
Kailash - PW-2.

27. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh
(Supra) has held in para 18 that :-

"18. By now it is a settled
principle of law that for convicting the
accused with the aid of Section 34 of the
IPC the prosecution must establish prior
meetings of minds. It must be established
that all the accused had preplanned and
shared a common intention to commit the
crime with the accused who has actually
committed the crime. It must be established
that the criminal act has been done in
furtherance of the common intention of all
the accused. Reliance in support of the
aforesaid proposition could be placed on
the following judgments of this Court in the
cases of :

(1) Ezajhussain Sabdarhussain
and another v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 14
SCC 339;

(ii) Jasdeep Singh alias Jassu v.
State of Punjab, (2022) 2 SCC 545;

(iii) Gadadhar Chandra v. State
of West Bengal, (2022) 6 SCC 576; and

(iv) Madhusudan and others v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 4035."

28. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Chandra Pratap Singh
(Supra) considering the application under
Section 34 IPC and Section 302 IPC has
held that :-

"18. We have carefully perused
the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. There is
no evidence of the presence of common
intention. Only the act of stopping the
deceased Uma Prasad will not, by itself,
bring the case within the purview of Section
34 of IPC. There is no overt act attributed
to the appellant by any prosecution witness
in the assault on deceased Uma Prasad. It
is difficult to infer a prior meeting of minds
in this case. There is no material to prove
the existence of common intention which is
the necessary ingredient of Section 34 of
IPC. In this case, there is no overlap
112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
between a common object and a common
intention. Therefore, the conviction of the
appellant under Section 302, read with
Section 34 will have to be set aside."

29. Thus, from the law as laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in above case
law, it is clear that for convicting any
accused person, under Section 302 IPC
with the help of Section 34 IPC, a pre-plan,
pre-meditation,
participation
must
be
established and proved by the prosecution.
In other words, by proving pre-plan,
premeditation, prior meeting of minds and
participation,
prosecution
can
only
establish this fact that there was common
intention and act in the crime committed in
furtherance of common intention of all the
accused but in the present criminal appeal
at hand, from perusal and analysis of the
evidence of prosecution witnesses Dharam
Pal - PW-1, Kailash - PW-2 and PW-3 -
Kaushalya Devi, we find that in the
evidence as given by the witnesses in the
Court, there is no reference about the preplan, premeditation or prior meeting of
minds
among
the
accused
persons
including the present surviving appellant-
accused - Raj Bala.

30. Since the prosecution was totally
unable and unsuccessful to establish the
elements of prior meeting of minds, preplan and premeditation among the accused
person for commission of the crime,
therefore, in such a situation without
establishing
and
proving
the
main
ingredients of Section 34 IPC as elucidated
and laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the cases of Constable -907 Surendra
Singh (Supra) and Chandra Pratap
Singh (Supra), we are of the considered
opinion that present surviving appellant
accused - Raj Bala could not be held guilty
under Section 302/34 IPC and under
Section 307/34 IPC for commission of the
crime. We find that allegation upon the
present accused-appellant, Raj Bala that
she fired at PW-2 - Kailash from katta
(tamancha) has not been proved by the
evidence of prosecution. In this respect,
statement of Kailash - PW-2 and Dr. S.K.
Jaiswal - PW-7, who prepared the injury
report (Exhibit Ka-20) also reflect this fact
that there is no fire arm injury on the body
of Kailash - PW-2. All the injuries of PW-2
are found simple and caused by hard and
blunt object. This fact also shows that the
allegation levelled upon appellant- Raj Bala
for firing at Kailash with katta (desi
tamancha) is doubtful, suspicious and
totally false.

31. We have also perused and gone
through the judgement as given by the Trial
Court and we find that the Trial Court has
not given proper reasoning and also not
disclosed the prosecution evidence in this
respect in a clear cut way and wrongly held
the appellant - Raj Bala guilty under
Sections 302/34, 307/34 IPC.

32. In the present criminal appeal at
hand, accused - Ram Bharosey and Kunwar
Pal Singh have died. In view of the above
facts, appeal filed by accused - Ram
Bharosey and Kunwar Pal Singh have been
abated, therefore, we did not go into the
findings recorded against the above said
two accused.

33. In view of the above discussions
and observations, we find that conviction of
present appellant - accused Smt. Raj Bala
under Sections 302/ 34 IPC and Section
307/34 IPC is not sustainable in the eye of
law.

34. Therefore, we hereby set aside the
conviction and sentence as passed by Trial
12 All. Nitin Kumar Singh @ Nitin Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
113
Court against the present- appellant - Raj
Bala in Session Trial No. 175 of 1986, under
Sections 302/34 & 307/34 IPC. We find that
present appellant - accused Raj Bala is
eligible for acquittal under Sections 302/34
and 307/34 IPC by giving benefit of doubt.

35. Thus, it appears and emerges from
perusal of the prosecution evidence that
involvement of accused - Raj Bala is highly
doubtful. It appears from the evidence that
accused-appellant - Smt. Raj Bala was
paramour of accused- Ram Bharosey and due
to this fact, to take revenge with Smt. Raj Bala
- appellant/ accused, prosecution purposely
and falsely implicated the appellant- accused
Raj Bala in this case.

36. In the light of above observation,
we find that appeal filed by accused should
be allowed and judgment and order of
conviction and sentence passed by Trial
Court is liable to be set aside.

37. Accordingly, the judgment and order
of conviction and sentence dated 04.11.1989,
passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge
Bulandshahar in Session Trial No. 175 of
1986, arising out of Case Crime No.707 of
1985, under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 323/34
IPC, Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, District
Bulandshahar is set aside and the present
criminal appeal is allowed.

38. The appellant Raj Bala is acquitted
of the charge under Sections 302/34 &
307/34 IPC.

39. The appellant is on bail. Her bail
bond
is
cancelled
and
sureties
are
discharged. She need not surrender.

40. Office is directed to certify the
judgment to the learned trial Court
forthwith along with lower court record.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 113
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 19091 of 2025

Nitin Kumar Singh @ Nitin Kumar
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the arrest of the
petitioner and the consequential judicial remand
order dated 18.05.2025 were vitiated in law on
account of alleged non-compliance with the
mandatory
constitutional
and
statutory
safeguards enshrined under Article 22(1) of
Constitution and s. 50 of Cr.PC / s. 47 of BNSS,
2023, and, if so, whether such alleged infirmity
warranted quashing of remand order and a
direction for the petitioner's release on interim
bail in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article
226 of Constitution.

Headnotes
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- ss. 47, 58, 318(4), 338, 340(1), 340(2),
111 and 336(3) - Constitution of India,
1950 - Articles 21, 22(1) - The petitioner
was arrested in connection with Case
Crime No. 290 of 2025, pursuant to a
search and recovery operation conducted
by police/STF at the premises of Monad
University, Hapur, allegedly uncovering a
large-scale racket involving preparation
and circulation of fake degrees and
marksheets - The arrest followed the
execution of a search warrant issued by a
competent Magistrate, and the petitioner
was produced before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Hapur, who
passed a judicial remand order dated
18.05.2025 - Aggrieved by the said order,