9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 1356 - SC - Indian LawsCompliance by the Investigating Officer with the duties and responsibilities cast upon him by virtue of Chapter XII of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - acquitting all the other co accused in connection with the same crime - HELD THAT - It is pertinent to note that the prosecution's case rests solely on circumstantial evidence, as none was found present at the scene of the incident - Further, it is also not the case of the prosecution that the present appellant had either used or shot the deceased with the gun allegedly recovered based on his statement (Ex. P 15), which was purportedly made before the police officer (PW 23) in the presence of independent witnesses namely, Naresh Mandal (PW 6) and Avinash Tirki (PW 7). Nothing on the record suggests that the present appellant had conspired to commit the offence. At best, as shown from the testimony of this deponent, the present appellant has only concealed the relevant incriminating evidence/articles. The materials on record in no way establish that before the commission of the offence, the accused had any common purpose, object or intention of committing the crime, without the same being borne out of the records, the charge of criminal conspiracy and of common intention which is to be read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, fails. The present appellant cannot be convicted of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860, 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. The Investigating Officer did not meet the obligations he was under. As it is noticed, numerous infirmities affected the conduct of the Investigation Officer calling into question, credibly, the investigation conducted by him or upon his directions. The High Court, without appreciating the testimonies of the witnesses mentioned above in their true import and meaning, and without having any discussion concerning the complicity of the accused, in a perfunctory manner held the prosecution to have established the case, which is entirely circumstantial in nature, against the present appellant. Significantly, the High Court holds that the evidence reveals that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused - the accused is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. Application disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance by the Investigating Officer with duties under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. Error by the lower court in not returning a finding for the appellant under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, while acquitting other co-accused. 3. Sustainability of the impugned judgments convicting the appellant. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Compliance by the Investigating Officer with Duties Under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 The court scrutinized the investigation conducted by Inspector J.S. Saggu (PW-23). The investigation was criticized for several lapses: - The officer failed to properly document his movements and actions in the case diary. - The statements of the accused were not recorded by the officer himself or under his instructions. - The officer did not examine the owner of the house from which incriminating articles were recovered. - There was no written communication or evidence indicating that the appellant was called to the police station. - The officer did not comply with the procedural requirements as laid out in D.K Basu v. State of WB regarding the arrest and information to the family members. - The ballistic report and other scientific evidence were not adequately linked to the appellant. 2. Error by the Lower Court in Not Returning a Finding for the Appellant Under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 The court noted that the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC requires evidence of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act. The testimonies and evidence did not establish a meeting of minds or a common intention among the accused. The High Court failed to appreciate the lack of evidence supporting a conspiracy. The court emphasized that a single person cannot hatch a conspiracy, and with the acquittal of other co-accused, the requirement of a criminal conspiracy was not met. 3. Sustainability of the Impugned Judgments Convicting the Appellant The court found that the conviction of the appellant, Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh, was based on circumstantial evidence, which did not meet the required legal standards. The testimonies of key witnesses (PW-6, PW-7, and PW-1) did not support the prosecution's case. The High Court's judgment was criticized for not thoroughly reappreciating the evidence and for relying on a hypothesis of guilt rather than certainty. The court concluded that the evidence did not conclusively point towards the appellant's guilt and set aside the conviction. Conclusion The Supreme Court set aside the judgment dated 14.1.2016 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 468 of 2013, acquitting the appellant, Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh. The appellant was directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not already released. Interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of.
|
