LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a conviction can be sustained when the investigation is flawed and based on circumstantial evidence, and whether a charge of criminal conspiracy can stand against a single individual after all other co-accused are acquitted.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh
Judgment Date: 24 April 2023
Date of the Judgment: 24 April 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 358
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Sanjay Karol, J.
Can a conviction be upheld when the investigation is riddled with inconsistencies and the prosecution’s case relies solely on circumstantial evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, overturning a High Court judgment that had upheld the conviction of an individual. The case highlights the importance of a thorough and unbiased investigation, especially in cases where there are no eyewitnesses. The bench comprised Justices B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, with the judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Karol.
Case Background
The case revolves around the murder of Goverdhan Aggarwal, a businessman who was shot dead on 26 September 2009, around 7:00 PM, after leaving his office. The deceased, along with others, had allegedly received threats and demands for money. Following the incident, an FIR was registered at P.S. Gandhi Nagar, and the body was sent for post-mortem. The police investigation led to a chargesheet against several individuals, including Sunil Paswan, Pankaj Singh (the appellant), and Pappu Tiwari, alleging that they conspired to murder Goverdhan Aggarwal. The prosecution claimed that Pappu Tiwari provided the motorcycle, Pankaj Singh provided information on the deceased’s movements, and Abhishek Singh drove Sunil Paswan, who shot the deceased.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 26 September 2009 | Goverdhan Aggarwal was shot dead around 7:00 PM after leaving his office. |
| 26 September 2009 | FIR registered at P.S. Gandhi Nagar. |
| 27 September 2009 | Investigating Officer visited the crime spot, conducted a preliminary investigation, and sent the body for post-mortem. |
| 12 October 2009 | Pankaj Singh was called to the police station, where he recorded his statement. |
| 22 October 2009 | Pankaj Singh was arrested. |
| 25 March 2013 | The Additional District Judge delivered a common judgment, convicting several accused, including Pankaj Singh, and acquitting Akhileshwar Pratap Singh. |
| 14 January 2016 | The High Court of Chhattisgarh acquitted all the accused except Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh. |
| 24 April 2023 | The Supreme Court of India set aside the High Court’s judgment and acquitted Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial was conducted by the Additional District Judge, who convicted several accused, including Pankaj Singh, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Arms Act, 1959. However, the High Court of Chhattisgarh, in its judgment dated 14 January 2016, acquitted all the accused except Pankaj Singh. The High Court upheld Pankaj Singh’s conviction based on the testimonies of certain witnesses and the recovery of weapons based on his statement. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, Pankaj Singh appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case involves several key legal provisions:
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
- Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the punishment for criminal conspiracy. “when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.”
- Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section addresses causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen offender.
- Section 25(1)(1-b)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959: This section deals with the punishment for possessing arms without a license.
- Section 79 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section lays down the process for “Warrant directed to police officer for execution outside jurisdiction”.
The Supreme Court also considered the principles related to circumstantial evidence as laid down in previous cases such as Vijay Shankar v. State of Haryana [(2015) 12 SCC 644], Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] and Bablu v. State of Rajasthan [(2006) 13 SCC 116].
Arguments
The arguments in the case were centered around the following submissions:
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Prosecution’s Case: |
|
| Appellant’s (Pankaj Singh) Defense: |
|
Innovativeness of the argument: The defense innovatively argued that the charge of criminal conspiracy cannot stand against a single individual, especially after all other co-accused have been acquitted. This argument challenged the fundamental requirement of a conspiracy, which necessitates the involvement of two or more individuals.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- Whether the Investigating Officer in the present case had complied with the duties and responsibilities cast upon him by virtue of Chapter XII of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973?
- Whether the court below, while acquitting all the other co-accused in connection with the same crime, erred in not returning a finding qua the instant appellant – a co-accused – in respect of a charged framed under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
- Whether the impugned judgments convicting the appellant are sustainable in law or not?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether the Investigating Officer complied with his duties under Chapter XII of the CrPC? | The Court found that the Investigating Officer failed to conduct a proper investigation. The Court noted several lapses, including not maintaining a case diary, not examining the owner of the house where weapons were recovered, and relying on unreliable witnesses. |
| Whether the High Court erred in not returning a finding on Section 120B of the IPC against the appellant after acquitting other co-accused? | The Court held that the High Court should have returned a finding on Section 120B of the IPC. The Court noted that a charge of criminal conspiracy requires a meeting of minds between two or more persons, which is impossible when all other co-accused are acquitted. |
| Whether the impugned judgments convicting the appellant are sustainable in law? | The Court held that the conviction was not sustainable. The Court found that the prosecution’s case rested on weak circumstantial evidence and that the High Court had erred in holding the appellant guilty based on probability rather than certainty. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vijay Shankar v. State of Haryana [(2015) 12 SCC 644] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence. |
| Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence. |
| Bablu v. State of Rajasthan [(2006) 13 SCC 116] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence. |
| D.K Basu v. State of WB [(1997) 1 SCC 416] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Guidelines for arrest and detention. |
| Geeta Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [2022 SCC OnLine 57] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | The duty of the First Appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record. |
| Parveen v. State of Haryana [2021 SCC OnLine SC 1184] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | The need for adequate evidence to connect an accused with criminal conspiracy. |
| Amarnath Chaubey v. Union of India [(2021) 11 SCC 80] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | The primary duty of the police to investigate upon receiving a report of a crime. |
| Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India [(2014) 2 SCC 532] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | The responsibilities of the police, including the protection of life, liberty, and property of citizens. |
| Common Cause v. Union of India [(2015) 6 SCC 332] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | The high degree of responsibility placed on an investigating agency to ensure that an innocent person is not subjected to a criminal trial. |
| Pooja Pal v. Union of India [(2016) 3 SCC 135] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | The need for fidelity, accuracy, and sincerity in criminal investigations. |
| Bhagwant Singh v. Commission of Police [(1983) 3 SCC 344] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | The requirement for entries in the police diary to be prompt, detailed, and objective. |
| Mohd. Imran Khan v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2011) 10 SCC 192] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | The need for criminal investigations to be free from objectionable features and infirmities. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh. The Court found that the High Court had erred in upholding the conviction based on a flawed investigation and weak circumstantial evidence.
| Submission by Parties | Treatment by the Court |
|---|---|
| Prosecution’s submission that the circumstantial evidence was conclusive. | The Court rejected this submission, noting that the evidence was weak and the investigation was flawed. |
| Prosecution’s reliance on the testimonies of PW-6 and PW-7. | The Court found these testimonies unreliable, as both witnesses admitted to signing blank papers and not supporting the prosecution’s case. |
| Prosecution’s reliance on the recovery of weapons based on Pankaj Singh’s statement. | The Court found this recovery unreliable due to the numerous lapses in the investigation, including the Investigating Officer not maintaining a case diary and not examining the owner of the house from where the weapons were recovered. |
| Appellant’s submission that the investigation was flawed. | The Court upheld this submission, noting numerous infirmities in the investigation. |
| Appellant’s submission that the charge of criminal conspiracy could not stand against a single person. | The Court upheld this submission, stating that a criminal conspiracy requires the involvement of two or more persons. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court relied on Vijay Shankar v. State of Haryana [(2015) 12 SCC 644]*, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116]* and Bablu v. State of Rajasthan [(2006) 13 SCC 116]* to emphasize that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be cogently and firmly established and must unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused.
- The Court cited D.K Basu v. State of WB [(1997) 1 SCC 416]* to highlight the violation of guidelines for arrest and detention.
- The Court referred to Geeta Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [2022 SCC OnLine 57]* to stress the duty of the First Appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record.
- The Court used Parveen v. State of Haryana [2021 SCC OnLine SC 1184]* to underscore that a few bits here and there are not sufficient to connect an accused with the commission of a crime of criminal conspiracy.
- The Court cited Amarnath Chaubey v. Union of India [(2021) 11 SCC 80]*, Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India [(2014) 2 SCC 532]*, Common Cause v. Union of India [(2015) 6 SCC 332]*, Pooja Pal v. Union of India [(2016) 3 SCC 135]*, Bhagwant Singh v. Commission of Police [(1983) 3 SCC 344]* and Mohd. Imran Khan v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2011) 10 SCC 192]* to highlight the importance of a fair and thorough investigation and the responsibilities of the investigating officer.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the numerous flaws in the investigation and the lack of concrete evidence against the appellant. The Court emphasized that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must conclusively point towards the guilt of the accused, leaving no room for any other reasonable hypothesis. The Court also highlighted the importance of a fair and unbiased investigation, especially when the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Flawed Investigation | 40% |
| Weak Circumstantial Evidence | 30% |
| Lack of Corroboration | 20% |
| Violation of Procedural Norms | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal principles governing circumstantial evidence and criminal conspiracy, along with the procedural lapses in the investigation. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a clear chain of evidence pointing towards the guilt of the appellant. The Court’s decision was more influenced by the legal aspects and the procedural lapses rather than the factual aspects of the case.
The Court considered various interpretations of the evidence and the legal provisions. It rejected the High Court’s finding that the evidence revealed that “in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused,” emphasizing that the standard of proof in cases involving circumstantial evidence is certainty, not probability. The Court also rejected the prosecution’s argument that the recovery of weapons based on the appellant’s statement was sufficient to establish his guilt, given the numerous lapses in the investigation.
The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges concurring on the acquittal of the appellant. The judgment clearly articulated the reasons for overturning the conviction, highlighting the importance of a fair and thorough investigation and the need for concrete evidence in criminal cases.
“On due consideration, the prosecution has proved entire circumstantial evidence against the appellant Madvendra. The circumstances are fully established consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and that is not explainable by any other circumstances except that appellant Madhvendra is guilty and evidence collected by the prosecution is of the conclusive nature and tendency.”
“The chain of evidence is complete, it shows in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. The Prosecution has duly proved that appellant Madhvendra had killed Gowardhan Agrawal and was also in possession of fire arm and cartridges in contravention of relevant provisions of Arms Act and had caused disappearance of evidence of offence committed by concealing the pistol, cartridges and other articles.”
“The Investigating Officer is the person tasked with determining a direction, the pace, manner and method of the investigation.”
Key Takeaways
- The judgment underscores the importance of a thorough and unbiased investigation, especially in cases relying on circumstantial evidence.
- It highlights that a conviction cannot be based on mere probability but must be supported by conclusive evidence pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
- The ruling clarifies that a charge of criminal conspiracy cannot stand against a single individual, particularly after all other co-accused have been acquitted.
- The case emphasizes the need for investigating officers to adhere to established procedures and maintain proper records during investigations.
- The judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the rights of individuals and ensuring that justice is administered fairly.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the accused, Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh, be set at liberty forthwith if not already released.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained based on a flawed investigation and weak circumstantial evidence. Additionally, a charge of criminal conspiracy cannot stand against a single individual when all other co-accused have been acquitted. This case reinforces the principle that the standard of proof in criminal cases is certainty, not probability, and highlights the importance of a fair and thorough investigation. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position and does not introduce any new legal principle but rather emphasizes the importance of following the established legal principles.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Maghavendra Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh is a significant judgment that emphasizes the importance of a fair and thorough investigation in criminal cases. The Court’s decision to overturn the conviction highlights the need for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence. The judgment also clarifies that a charge of criminal conspiracy cannot stand against a single individual when all other co-accused have been acquitted, reinforcing the fundamental principles of criminal law.