‘Investigating Officer Did Not Meet The Obligations’: Supreme Court Reverses Murder Conviction Imposed By Trial Court, Affirmed By High Court

“...we may observe that the Investigating Officer did not meet the obligations he was under. As we have noticed above, numerous infirmities affected the conduct of the Investigation Officer calling into question, credibly, the investigation conducted by him or upon his directions.”

The Apex Court also noted that the High Court had in a perfunctory manner held the prosecution to have established the case.

A Bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol noted the Investigating officer has a statutory duty to bring the offenders to book and facilitate the ultimate search for truth; he has a constitutional obligation to ensure maintenance of pear and upholding of rule of law.

Factual Background

A businessman was shot by two motorcyclists. He was taken to a hospital where he succumbed to the injury. The same night, an FIR was registered. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed naming the appellant and several others. The Trial Court acquitted one and convicted and sentenced seven under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Arms Act, 1959. In appeal, the High Court acquitted all the accused persons except the appellant.

Analysis by the Supreme Court

At the threshold the Court noted that the prosecution’s case is one based solely on circumstantial evidence. Moreover, neither of the two independent witnesses supported the prosecution’s case; nothing substantial could be culled out from their depositions to indicate the appellant’s guilt. It was taken note of that testimony one of these two witnesses disclosed that police threatened them and took their signature on a blank paper, purported to be used by the investigating agency to strengthen its case. The nephew of the deceased who was one of the prosecution witnesses had not pointed fingers at any of the accused persons. The Court noted that the testimony of the Investigating Officer ran into 97 pages and revealed that he miserably failed to investigate the case. It also disclosed the fact that the appellant was not present at the spot of crime and was only roped into the case as an accused on the basis of the disclosure statements of co-accused.

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?

The Investigating Officer concedes that neither the appellant nor the said co-accused person’s statements were recorded by him, in his hand, or by any other named persons under his instructions. Furthermore, there exists no direct evidence to prove the ballistic report; neither the expert who conducted chemical analysis nor the author of the report were examined. The Investigating Officer did not place on record any case diary; written communication to show that the appellant was called to the police station. Before arresting the accused, their family members were not supplied any information. Accused were arrested from other states without supplying any information to their relatives in contravention of the law laid down in DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416. The owner of the house from where recoveries were made was not examined.

The Court did not find the veracity of the Investigating Officer's testimony to inspire conspiracy for several reasons that are listed below -

1. did not examine the owner of the house from where recovery was made;
2. did not enter movement in case diary;
3. did not record that he took the accused for effecting the recovery;
4. was not able to describe clearly the are from where the recovery was effected;
5. admitted both the independent witnesses, who do not belong to the area from where the recoveries were effected;
6. did not associate any of the residents of the area for conducting the search;
7. did not examine any of the residents for carrying out any further investigation and
8. he admitted that both the memo of arrest as also the recovery not to have been prepared by him or bearing his signature and same too, have many corrections and over-writing, thus reducing the correctness and authenticity of this document;
9. he was not clear about the description of the recovered articles.

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 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

There was nothing on record to suggest that the appellant had conspired to commit murder; at best it could have been shown that he concealed relevant incriminating evidence. The Court noted that in order to prove the offence of criminal conspiracy it is imperative to show a meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended common object. Moreover, since all other accused had been acquitted the charge of criminal conspiracy fails as one person cannot hatch a conspiracy.

On perusal of the impugned judgment, the Court noted that the High Court had in essence upheld the conviction and sentence including the sentence for criminal conspiracy. It observed that as the first appellate court, the High Court ought to have re-appreciated and discussed the evidence on record and returned a finding on Section 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy).

Whether the impugned judgments convicting the appellant are sustainable in law or not?

The Court concluded -

“In the considered opinion of the Court, 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”. Inter alia, it is this finding which we find to be erroneous, for the principle of determining the guilt of the accused 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 accused, Pankaj Singh (appellant).”

Case details

Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh| 2023 Livelaw SC 358   | Criminal Appeal Nos. 915 of 2016| 24th April, 2023| Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol