TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 1356
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sustainable in law or not? 2. Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh (referred to as Pankaj Singh) has preferred the present appeal against the Judgment dated 14.1.2016 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 468 of 2013. He 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 the Arms Act, 1959 3 years RI with fine of Rs. 1000/­ and 6 months RI for default. The sentences were awarded to run concurrently. 3. The incident which led to the present case was that a businessman by the name of Goverdhan Aggarwal (hereinafter, the deceased) and certain others were threatened, and a demand of rupees ten lakhs was made from each of them. On 26.9.2009 the deceased left his office at about 7:00 PM for his home when two motorcyclists shot him. He was taken to the District Hospital, Ambikapur, in the car of PW­24, namely....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....01(1), 120B IPC Convicted. Life imprisonment. Acquitted. 2. Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh S. 302, 120B, 201(1)/120B, IPC, S. 25(1) (1­B)a, Arms Act. Convicted. Life imprisonment. Convicted. 3. Akhileshwar Pratap Singh @ Lalit Singh S. 212, IPC. Acquitted. Not appealed. 4. Siddhkant Tiwari @ Pappu Tiwari S. 302/120B, 201(1), 120B IPC. 5. Mannu Singh @ Gyanendra Singh @ Manvendra Singh @ Abhishek Singh S. 302/120B, 201(1), 120B IPC Convicted. Life imprisonment Acquitted. 6. Satish Tripathi S. 212(1), 201(1), 120B, IPC. Convicted. Five years rigorous imprisonment. Acquitted. 7. Ganeshdutt Mishra S. 212(1), IPC. Convicted. Five years rigorous imprisonment. Acquitted. 7. The High Court, vide Impugned judgement dated 14.01.2016, acquitted all the accused save and except Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh, the present appellant. 8. This Court has therefore been called upon to examine the correctness of the conviction decision and sentence rendered by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, and as partly confirmed by the High C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n is as follows: "8. There is no eyewitness to the occurrence and the entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence. The normal principle is that in a case based on circumstantial evidence the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that these circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation of any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence vide Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 487]. The same view was reiterated in Bablu v. State of Rajasthan [Bablu v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 13 SCC 116 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 590]." 13. In light of the fact that all the co­accused who had preferred appeals stand acquitted by the Court below, therefore, while fully appreciating th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ead body for post­mortem and collected several incriminating articles. 21. It is pertinent to note that his testimony reveals that the prime accused was Sunil Paswan, who stands acquitted on all charges by the Court below, and this Court is not called upon examine the complicity of the other accused. 22. It further emanates from the testimony of P.W. 23 that the present appellant was not present at the spot of the crime. In fact, not even one person has disclosed his complicity in the crime. His testimony further reads the complicity of Pankaj Singh in the crime, to be suspected only based on the disclosure statements of coaccused Sunil Paswan (Ex. P­13) to the effect that the former could get recovered pistol/bullets/live cartridges from the house of coaccused Abhishek Singh. The courts below have disbelieved this part of the version of the deponent qua the other accused. Hence, the High Court's reasoning in arriving at Pankaj Singh's guilt is illogical if not self­contradictory. 23. Furthermore, we notice that on 12.10.2009, Pankaj Singh was called to the police station, where he recorded his statement, which corroborated what Sunil Paswan had said re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee. (4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest." 28. In pursuance of these directions, Section 79 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was introduced, laying down the process for "Warrant directed to police officer for execution outside jurisdiction". 29. The record does not reflect that the house from which the recoveries were affected belonged to accused Abhishek Singh. Regarding the conduct of the search, we may also observe that the owner of the house was not examined. This begs the question that if both Abhishek and Sunil were aware of the situs of incriminating articles, then why is it that recoveries were not affected by their statements or through t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... High Court would have returned a finding on Section 120­B of IPC. The charge of criminal conspiracy requires meeting of the minds prior to commission of offence, and with four of the five appeals being allowed and only the present appellant being convicted, the basic requirement of the section, that is of two or more persons agreeing to or causing to be done an illegal act or an act which is not per se illegal but it is done by illegal means, is not met. The impugned judgment, however, only records that Section 10 and 30 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which deal with things having been said or done by a conspirator in reference to common design and a proved confession being considered as against another person; are not applicable and then observes that the sentence handed down to Pankaj Singh does not call for any interference. Therefore, the Court implies that the conviction in its entirety including the sentence for criminal conspiracy is upheld. Such a view, in the considered view of this Court, cannot be sustained. 35. Even about the search, we do not find the veracity of the Investigating Officer's testimony to be inspiring in confidence on account of various lapses. For h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of peace and the upholding of rule of law. 39. On the responsibility cast on an officer investigating a crime, this Court in Common Cause v. Union of India (2015) 6 SCC 332, observed as under : "31. There is a very high degree of responsibility placed on an investigating agency to ensure that an innocent person is not subjected to a criminal trial. This responsibility is coupled with an equally high degree of ethical rectitude required of an investigating officer or an investigating agency to ensure that the investigations are carried out without any bias and are conducted in all fairness not only to the accused person but also to the victim of any crime, whether the victim is an individual or the State." 40. It is well recognised that the Magistrate concerned is not empowered to interfere with the investigation being carried out up until the submission of the report by the said officer. Needless to state then that the role of the Investigating Officer is essential and crucial. Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. titled as "information to the police and their powers to investigate", lays down the procedure and course of action to be taken by the police upon receipt of the commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... evidence of witnesses found and interviewed by police in an extension of their responsibility to seek out the truth of all the circumstances of crime happening. An increasing certainty in solving crimes is possible and will contribute to the major deterrent of crime-the certainty that a criminal will be discovered, arrested and convicted." (Emphasis in original) 42. With reference to case diaries, it has been observed by this Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commission of Police (1983) 3 SCC 344, a two­Judge Bench observed that entries into the police diary shall be with (a) promptness; (b) in sufficient detail; (c) containing all significant facts; (d) in chronological order; and (e) with complete objectivity. 43. This Court in Mohd. Imran Khan v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192, observed as under while noting the effect of objectionable features and infirmities on criminal investigations: "31. The investigation into a criminal offence must be free from all objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a grievance to either of the parties that the investigation was unfair or had been carried out with an ulterior motive which....