Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MANOJ MISRA, MANMOHAN, JJ.
Pulkit @ Monu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1818 of 2022
Decided On : 20-05-2026
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 120B – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Murder and conspiracy – Conviction – Circumstantial evidence – There must be a chain of circumstances so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with innocence of accused – Regarding motive for crime, there is no worthwhile evidence – Motive alone, though may be relevant for investigation of case, by itself cannot sustain conviction – It is nothing more than a link to chain of incriminating circumstances – On its own, it cannot form basis of conviction – Confessional disclosure made during police custody is admissible under Section 27 of Evidence Act, 1872 only to the extent it leads to discovery of a fact – Seizure of Mobile and its CDR had little or no evidentiary value to link appellant to crime when it is not borne out from record that Mobile was in possession of concerned accused on the date of incident – Chain of circumstances is not complete as to rule out all hypotheses save and except guilt of appellant – Appellant ought to have been given benefit of doubt – Appellant acquitted of charge for which he was tried and convicted. (Paras 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises from an order of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore dated 25.06.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1475/2012, whereby appeal of appellant against his conviction under Section 302/ 120B IPC in Sessions Trial No.662/ 2008 was dismissed.
Findings of Court:
Appellant is acquitted of the charge for which he was tried and convicted. He shall be released, unless required in any other case.
Result : Criminal Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background and judicial history of the criminal appeal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual overview of the offense, charges, and findings of lower courts. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. contentions regarding evidence admissibility and proof of conspiracy. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. requirement of proof (direct or circumstantial) for criminal conspiracy. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. standards for establishing guilt through circumstantial evidence. (Para 12) |
| 6. evidentiary analysis of motive, witness testimony, disclosure statements, and cdr data. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. application of benefit of doubt when circumstantial chain is incomplete. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 8. final order of acquittal due to insufficient evidence. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
ORDER :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal arises from an order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore1[High Court] dated 25.06.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1475/2012, whereby the appeal of the appellant against his conviction under Section 302/ 120B IPC in Sessions Trial No.662/ 2008 was dismissed.
Facts
3. Four persons, namely, Tarun, Mithun @ Deepak, Sandeep and the appellant, were tried for murder of one Ashok Bakdiya, which took place on 18.06.2008. Tarun, Mithun @ Deepak and Sandeep, were convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602[IPC] and Section 25 of the Arms Act whereas the appellant was convicted for criminal conspiracy to commit murder, punishable under Section 302/120B IPC. All convicted accused appealed to the High Court. Sandeep’s appeal abated whereas rest three appeals were dismissed by the impugned order.
4. This appeal is confined to the case against the appellant who has been convicted for criminal conspiracy to commit murder of Ashok Bakdiya3[Deceased].
5. The trial court convicted the appellant for the offence of conspiracy by relying on the following circumstances:
(ii) Few days before the incident Yogesh (PW-9), while parking his vehicle at a public place, saw the appellant, co-accused Tarun and few others talking abusively about the deceased.
(iii) Disclosure statement of the appellant led to discovery of the names of other co-accused i.e. perpetrators of the crime and seizure of appellant’s mobile with which he contacted the co-accused Tarun after the occurrence.
(iv) There was a dispute between the appellant and the deceased as disclosed by Asha Bakdiya (PW8), wife of the deceased, and one Navneet (PW10), who, about six months before, saw the appellant being slapped by the deceased, in response to which the appellant had pointed a gun at the deceased. Thus, there existed motive for the crime.
(v) After the occurrence, on the same day, the appellant had contacted co-accused Tarun from the mobile seized from the appellant.
6. Though the appeal of the appellant was dismissed, the High Court discarded the testimony of PW3 and PW5 upon finding that those two witnesses had deposed that they were detained illegally for a few days at the police station before their statement was recorded. However, the High Court relied on other circumstances to uphold conviction of the appellant.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
7. Impugning the orders of the trial court as well as the High Court, the submission on behalf of the appellant is as follows:
(ii) Once the High Court discarded the testimony of PW3 and PW5, there remained literally no evidence as regards involvement of the appellant.
(iii) Disclosure statement suffered by the appellant in custody is not admissible being a confessional statement which led to no discovery of any fact. In that context, it was urged that (a) the appellant was arrested
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that excludes any reasonable doubt of the accused's innocence.
Murder and criminal conspiracy – Liberty of a person should not ordinarily be interfered with unless there exist cogent grounds therefor--Conviction can only be sustained in absence of reasonable dou....
Convictions for conspiracy, abduction, and murder upheld based on circumstantial evidence, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt when last seen theory is corroborated with the absence of satisfa....
Murder – If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, Appellate Court should not disturb findings of acquittal recorded by Trial Court on the ground that another vie....
In cases of circumstantial evidence, the chain of events must be complete and unbroken. Conviction cannot rest on inadmissible police statements or unverified recoveries. Failure to establish motive,....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
