Suspicion remains grave but insufficient for conviction under Section 34 IPC absent evidence of prior concert.

The prosecution alleged that on September 21, 1987, at 8:30 PM, the accused Shaheed shot the deceased, Nanhey @ Abdul Rehman, following a dispute regarding an illicit relationship with Shaheed's sister.

Informant Shakeel Ahmad (PW-1) and Nand Lal (PW-3) alleged that while Shaheed fired the fatal shot, the surviving appellant, Laddan, and co-accused Rahmat fired shots in the air to intimidate witnesses before fleeing.

The Trial Court convicted Shaheed under Section 302 IPC and convicted Laddan and Rahmat under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment.

During the pendency of the appeal, Shaheed and Rahmat died, leaving Laddan as the sole surviving appellant.

1. Whether the presence and participation of the appellant Laddan at the scene of the crime were established beyond reasonable doubt given the lack of physical evidence.

2. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 IPC was legally sustainable in the absence of evidence proving a prearranged plan or prior concert.

The court applied Section 302 (Punishment for murder) and Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

The court relied on the principle that "suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof," as established in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam and State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra.

Regarding common intention, the court followed Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra, which mandates that for a conviction under Section 34, there must be a "prearranged plan" and "prior concert" that precedes the act constituting the offence.

The High Court found the prosecution's case against Laddan to be based on mere suspicion. Although PW-1 and PW-3 claimed Laddan fired in the air, the Investigating Officer (PW-6) recovered only one bullet from the scene and no empty cartridges, pellets, or ticklis that would suggest multiple shots.

Moreover, the court noted that Laddan had no personal enmity with the deceased nor any specific relationship with the main accused, Shaheed; his presence was likely inferred only because he was a frequent visitor to the locality.

The court reasoned that the Trial Court failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 34 IPC—specifically, the lack of evidence showing a prior concert or meeting of minds between Laddan and Shaheed to commit murder.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of conviction dated May 28, 1990, in respect of Laddan, and acquitted him of all charges. The appellant's bail bonds were cancelled and sureties discharged.