NDLI: Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	120-B Criminal Conspiracy ss. 302 201 IPC Circumstantial Evidence
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	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 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
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 415
Petitioner	Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh
Respondent	State Of Chhattisgarh
SCR	[2023] 4 S.C.R. 829
Judgement Date	2023-04-24
Case Number	915

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Please Log-in to view this content

Indrajit Das Vs. The State of Tripura

Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Balwan Singh Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Siju Kurian Vs. State of Karnataka

Ananda Poojary Vs. State of Karnataka

Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Baiju Kumar Soni & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand

Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others Vs. State of Gujarat Etc.

Balkar Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Indrajit Das Vs. The State of Tripura

Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Balwan Singh Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Siju Kurian Vs. State of Karnataka

Ananda Poojary Vs. State of Karnataka

Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Baiju Kumar Soni & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand

Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others Vs. State of Gujarat Etc.

Balkar Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh