MAGHAVENDRA PRATAP SINGH @ PANKAJ SINGH versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 829 · Decided: 24-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
829
   [2023] 4 S.C.R. 829
829
MAGHAVENDRA PRATAP SINGH @ PANKAJ SINGH
v.
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
(Criminal Appeal No. 915 of 2016)
APRIL 24, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302 , 201, 120-B – Circumstantial
Evidence – Criminal Conspiracy – Businessman-victim threatened
for money and shot dead by two motorcyclists – Appellant and several
others chargesheeted – Trial court convicted and sentenced all the
accused persons except one – However, the High Court acquitted
all the accused except the appellant – On appeal, held: Prosecution
case rests solely on circumstantial evidence, as none was found
present at the scene of the incident – Neither of the independent
witness supported the prosecution case – Veracity of the
Investigating Officer’s testimony does not inspire confidence on
account of various lapses – Nothing on record suggests that the
appellant had conspired to commit offence – Also all other accused
were acquitted by the courts below and a single person cannot hatch
a conspiracy – Thus, the High Court without appreciating the
testimonies of the witnesses in their true import and meaning, and
without having any discussion concerning the complicity of the
appellant, in a perfunctory manner held the prosecution to have
established the case, which is entirely circumstantial in nature,
against the appellant – High Court erred in holding that the evidence
reveals that in all human probability the act must have been done
by the appellant – Principle of determining the guilt of the appellant
in a case involving circumstantial evidence is not that of probability
but certainty and that all the evidence present should conclusively
point towards only a singular hypothesis, which is the guilt of the
appellant – Thus, the order of the High Court is set aside – Arms
Act, 1959 – s. 25(1)(1-b)(a) – Evidence Act, 1872 – Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1974 – Chapter XII.
Penal Code, 1860:120-B – Charge of criminal conspiracy
under – Basic requirement of – Held: For the charge of criminal
conspiracy u/s. 120B, to be established, an agreement between the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
830
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
parties to do an unlawful act must exist – In case of lack of direct
evidence, it is not safe to hold a person guilty u/s. 120B – To prove
the offence of criminal conspiracy, it is imperative to show a meeting
of the minds between the conspirators for the intended common
object – On facts, appellant cannot be convicted of criminal
conspiracy solely for having concealed the location of the
incriminating materials / articles and, in the absence of any evidence
establishing meeting of the minds – Given that all the other co-
accused have been acquitted by the courts below, meaning they
were innocent of the crime, the fundamental requirement of a criminal
conspiracy is not met.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Chapter XII – Duties
and responsibilities of the Investigating Officer – Compliance of –
Held: Investigating Officer is the person tasked with determining a
direction, the pace, manner and method of the investigation – It is
his statutory duty under the CrPC and is also a constitutional
obligation to ensure the maintenance of peace and the uphold of
rule of law – On facts, Investigating Officer miserably failed to
investigate as is expected and required of a police officer to
investigate a crime of murder, especially when not even a single
eyewitness exists, and the entire case rests entirely on circumstantial
evidence – Investigating Officer did not meet the obligations he
was under – Numerous infirmities affected the conduct of the
Investigation Officer calling into question, credibly, the investigation
conducted by him or upon his directions.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The prosecution’s case rests solely on
circumstantial evidence, as none was found present at the scene
of the incident. Further, it is also not the case of the prosecution
that the present appellant had either used or shot the deceased
with the gun allegedly recovered based on his statement, which
was purportedly made before the police officer-PW-23 in the
presence of independent witnesses PW-6 and PW-7. [Paras 10
and 11][837-G-H]
1.2. Neither of the independent witness PW 6 and PW 7
supported the prosecution case. Despite extensive cross
examination conducted by the Public Prosecutor, nothing
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
831
substantial could be elicited from their testimonies indicating any
guilt of the acc

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.