Conviction of Laddan Set Aside Due to Insufficient Proof of Prearranged Plan in Murder Case
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has acquitted Laddan, the sole surviving accused in a long-standing murder case, citing insufficient evidence and lack of proof of common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Division Bench, comprising Justices J.J. Munir and Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, delivered the verdict on July 1, 2026, allowing the criminal appeal filed by Laddan against his conviction by the IXth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Allahabad.
The case originates from a 1987 incident involving the murder of Nanhey @ Abdul Rehman, allegedly over personal enmity linked to past illicit relations with the sister of one of the accused. The trial court had convicted Laddan and others under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for life imprisonment. However, during the appeal, it was noted that the primary accused, Shaheed, had died, and the case against the others abated, leaving Laddan as the sole appellant.
The High Court scrutinized the evidence, emphasizing the necessity of proving prior concert or a prearranged plan to sustain a conviction under Section 34 IPC. The court found the prosecution's evidence regarding Laddan's involvement tenuous, noting discrepancies and a lack of corroborative physical evidence, such as the absence of multiple cartridges or gunshot residues that would indicate his participation.
The bench highlighted that mere suspicion or conjecture could not substitute for concrete proof in criminal jurisprudence. Citing the Supreme Court's precedents, the court reiterated that accusations must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused if evidence is not clear and compelling.
Ultimately, the High Court determined that there was no cogent evidence of Laddan's active participation or common intention with Shaheed in the crime. Consequently, the judgment and sentence by the trial court were set aside, and Laddan's bail bonds were canceled.
This acquittal underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the principles of justice by ensuring convictions are based on solid evidence rather than suspicion, thereby reinforcing the legal safeguards against wrongful convictions.
Bottom line:-
Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC cannot be sustained without clear evidence of prior concert or prearranged plan among accused persons.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 302, 34; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 313
Shaheed v. State, (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2933259
