Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to flawed investigation: Maghavendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 24th April 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 415

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Sanjay Karol, J.

Can a conviction stand when the investigation is riddled with inconsistencies and the evidence is purely circumstantial? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the High Court upheld a conviction despite acquitting all other co-accused. This judgment highlights the importance of a fair and thorough investigation in criminal cases. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, overturned the conviction, emphasizing that the prosecution’s case must be proven with certainty, not just probability. Justice Sanjay Karol authored the judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Goverdhan Aggarwal, a businessman who was shot dead on September 26, 2009, after receiving extortion threats. The prosecution alleged that Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh (the appellant) conspired with others to commit the murder. According to the prosecution, Pankaj Singh provided information about the deceased’s movements, while another accused, Sunil Paswan, shot the deceased. The trial court convicted several individuals, including Pankaj Singh, but the High Court acquitted all except Pankaj Singh.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted several accused, including Pankaj Singh, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Arms Act, 1959. Five appeals were filed in the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The High Court acquitted all the accused except Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh, upholding his conviction. The High Court relied on the testimonies of Ashish Agrawal (PW-1), Naresh Mandal (PW-6), Avinash Tirki (PW-7), and Inspector J.S. Saggu (PW-23). The High Court stated that the circumstantial evidence was conclusive against Pankaj Singh.

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 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with causing disappearance of evidence of an offense or giving false information to screen an offender.
• Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for criminal conspiracy.
• Section 25(1)(1-b)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959: This section deals with the possession of illegal arms.
• Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This chapter outlines the duties and responsibilities of the police during investigations.

The Supreme Court also considered the principles of circumstantial evidence as laid down in Vijay Shankar v. State of Haryana (2015) 12 SCC 644, which states that circumstantial evidence must unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused and be incapable of explanation by any other hypothesis.

Arguments

The arguments presented by the parties can be summarized as follows:

• Appellant’s Arguments:
  • The prosecution’s case rests solely on circumstantial evidence, with no eyewitnesses.
  • The independent witnesses (PW-6 and PW-7) did not support the prosecution’s case and stated that they had signed blank papers under police pressure.
  • The Investigating Officer (PW-23) failed to conduct a thorough investigation.
  • The recovery of arms and ammunition was not properly established, and the ballistic report was not proven.
  • There was no evidence to prove that the appellant had conspired to commit the offense.
• Respondent’s Arguments:
  • The High Court correctly upheld the conviction based on the testimonies of key witnesses.
  • The circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove the appellant’s guilt.
  • The appellant was found in possession of illegal arms and ammunition.

The innovativeness in the argument of the appellant was that the independent witnesses turned hostile and the investigation was not properly done, thus raising a doubt on the prosecution’s case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. 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?
2. 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?
3. 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:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for murder.
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Causing disappearance of evidence.
• Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Criminal conspiracy.
• Section 25(1)(1-b)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959: Possession of illegal arms.
• Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Duties and responsibilities of the police during investigations.
• Section 79 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Warrant directed to police officer for execution outside jurisdiction.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Vijay Shankar v. State of Haryana (2015) 12 SCC 644* and other cases on circumstantial evidence to emphasize that the evidence must conclusively point towards the guilt of the accused, not just be probable.
• The Court cited D.K Basu v. State of WB (1997) 1 SCC 416* to highlight the importance of informing family members of an arrest, which was not done in this case.
• The Court referred to Parveen v. State of Haryana, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1184* to emphasize that a few bits of evidence are not adequate to establish criminal conspiracy.
• The Court used Geeta Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine 57* to point out that the High Court should have re-appreciated and discussed the evidence on record.
• The Court used Amarnath Chaubey v. Union of India (2021) 11 SCC 80* to highlight that the police has a primary duty to investigate upon receiving a report of the commission of crime.
• The Court used Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India (2014) 2 SCC 532* to highlight the responsibility of the police to protect life, liberty and property of citizens.
• The Court used Common Cause v. Union of India (2015) 6 SCC 332* to emphasize the high degree of responsibility on investigating agency to ensure that an innocent person is not subjected to a criminal trial.
• The Court used Pooja Pal v. Union of India (2016) 3 SCC 135* to expound on the purpose of criminal investigations and the need for fidelity, accuracy, and sincerity.
• The Court used Bhagwant Singh v. Commission of Police (1983) 3 SCC 344* to highlight that entries into the police diary shall be with promptness, in sufficient detail, containing all significant facts, in chronological order and with complete objectivity.
• The Court used Mohd. Imran Khan v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192* to emphasize that the investigation into a criminal offense must be free from all objectionable features or infirmities.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• Flawed Investigation: The Court noted significant lapses in the investigation, including the failure to examine key witnesses, the lack of proper documentation, and the reliance on unreliable evidence.
• Lack of Conclusive Evidence: The Court emphasized that the prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence that did not conclusively point to the appellant’s guilt. The evidence did not exclude other possibilities.
• Acquittal of Co-accused: The fact that all other co-accused were acquitted raised serious doubts about the appellant’s involvement in a criminal conspiracy.
• Failure to meet standards of criminal investigation: The Court highlighted that the investigation did not meet the standards expected of a criminal investigation.

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court is as follows:

The ratio of Fact:Law is 30:70, which means the court was more influenced by the legal aspects of the case than the factual aspects.

The Court rejected the High Court’s view that the act must have been done by the accused in all human probability, stating that the guilt of the accused in a case involving circumstantial evidence is not that of probability but certainty.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, with no eyewitnesses to the crime.
• The independent witnesses (PW-6 and PW-7) did not support the prosecution’s case and stated they had signed blank papers under police pressure.
• The Investigating Officer (PW-23) failed to conduct a thorough investigation, with numerous lapses and inconsistencies in his testimony.
• The recovery of arms and ammunition was not properly established, and the ballistic report was not proven.
• There was no evidence to prove that the appellant had conspired to commit the offense.
• The High Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and did not discuss the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The principle of determining guilt in a case involving circumstantial evidence is not that of probability but certainty.

The Court quoted the following from the High Court judgment:

“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 Supreme Court found this reasoning to be erroneous.

There were no minority opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• A conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a high degree of certainty, not just probability.
• A flawed investigation can undermine the entire prosecution’s case.
• The testimony of independent witnesses is crucial, and their statements must be reliable.
• The investigating officer must adhere to the procedures laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• The acquittal of co-accused can raise doubts about the guilt of the remaining accused, especially in cases of criminal conspiracy.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that if the appellant was not already released, he was to be set at liberty forthwith.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the evidence should conclusively point towards the guilt of the accused, and the investigation should be thorough and fair. This case reinforces the principles laid down in previous cases regarding circumstantial evidence and the duties of investigating officers. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment reiterates the importance of adherence to established legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh, emphasizing that the prosecution’s case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt due to a flawed investigation and lack of conclusive evidence. The judgment underscores the importance of a fair and thorough investigation in criminal cases and the need for evidence to conclusively point towards the guilt of the accused.