2023 Supreme(SC) 408

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, Sanjay Karol, JJ.
Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 915 of 2016
Decided On : 24-04-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Criminal conspiracy – To prove offence of criminal conspiracy, it is imperative to show meeting of minds between conspirators for intended common object – A single person cannot hatch conspiracy.
(2) Crime investigation – Magistrate concerned is not empowered to interfere with investigation being carried out up until submission of report by Investigating Officer – Role of Investigating Officer is essential and crucial.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 201 and 120B – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25(1)(1b)(a) – Murder, disappearance of evidence and criminal conspiracy – Conviction and sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Acquittal of co-accused persons – No direct evidence is available which firmly proves ballistic report – Neither expert who analysed and conducted chemical analysis nor author of report stand examined – Before arresting accused, no information was ever supplied to family members of any of accused persons – Nothing on record suggests that present appellant had conspired to commit offence – At best, appellant has only concealed relevant incriminating evidence/articles – Materials on record in no way establish that before commission of offence, accused had any common purpose, object or intention of committing crime, without same being borne out of records, charge of criminal conspiracy and of common intention which is to be read with Section 302 of IPC fails – There is nothing on record besides any other scientific evidence linking accused to recovered articles – Investigating Officer did not meet obligations he was under – Judgment passed by High Court set aside – Appeal allowed. (Paras 25, 26, 27, 30, 32, 37, 44 and 46)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120B – Criminal conspiracy – Ingredients – For charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of IPC to be established, agreement between parties to do an unlawful act must exist – In some cases, direct evidence to establish conspiracy may be absent, but when lack of evidence is apparent, it is not safe to hold a person guilty under this section – To prove offence of criminal conspiracy, it is imperative to show meeting of minds between conspirators for intended common object – A few bits here and a few bits there on which prosecution relies, cannot be held to be adequate for connecting accused with commission of crime of criminal conspiracy – Appellant cannot be convicted of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of IPC, solely for having concealed location of incriminating materials/articles and, in absence of any evidence establishing meeting of minds – Given that all other co-accused have been acquitted by courts below, fundamental requirement of a criminal conspiracy is not met – Charge of criminal conspiracy also fails on the ground that a single person cannot hatch conspiracy. (Paras 31, 32, 33 and 34)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 156, 157, 160, 161, 172 and 173 – Crime investigation – Investigating Officer is the person tasked with determining a direction, pace, manner and method of investigation – Investigation of offences to bring offender to book and facilitate ultimate search for truth is one of important duties Police has to perform – This is a statutory duty under Cr.P.C. and is also a constitutional obligation ensuring maintenance of peace and upholding of rule of law – Magistrate concerned is not empowered to interfere with investigation being carried out up until submission of report by said officer – Role of Investigating Officer is essential and crucial. (Paras 38 and 40)

Facts of the case:

Appellant alone stands convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860, with life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- with further imprisonment of 6 months in default; under Section 201 of the IPC, punishable with 7 years RI with a fine of Rs.1000/- and 6 months RI for default; under Section 25(1)(1b)(a) of Arms Act, 1959 3 years RI with fine of Rs.1000/- and 6 months RI for default. The sentences were awarded to run concurrently. High Court, vide Impugned judgement dated 14.01.2016, acquitted all the accused save and except present appellant.

Findings of Court:

Numerous infirmities affected the conduct of the Investigation Officer calling into question, credibly, the investigation conducted by him or upon his directions.

Result : Appeal allowed.