1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 915 OF 2016
MAGHAVENDRA PRATAP SINGH 
@ PANKAJ SINGH         … APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH … RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KAROL, J. 
1. The following three questions arise for consideration :
1. 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?
2. Whether   the   court   below,   while   acquitting   all   the
other   co­accused   in   connection   with   the   same
crime,   erred   in   not   returning   a   finding   qua   the
instant   appellant   –   a   co­accused   ­   in   respect   of   a
charged   framed   under   Section   120­B   of   the   Indian
Penal Code, 1860?

2
3. Whether   the   impugned   judgments   convicting   the
appellant are 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   Prabodh   Minz,   where   he
died.   That   night,   an   FIR   was   registered   at   the   P.S.   Gandhi   Nagar

3
(Ex.P­37).   The   body   was   sent   for   a   post­mortem   vide   Memo   under
Ex.P­39. After due investigation, a chargesheet was filed, stating that
all the accused persons, including   Sunil Paswan, Pankaj Singh, and
Pappu Tiwari, came together and, in agreement, committed or caused
to be committed the murder of Gowardhan Aggarwal. In pursuance of
the   said   agreement,   Pappu   Tiwari   made   available   the   motorcycle,
Pankaj   Singh   conveyed   the   information   of   the   deceased   having
departed   from   his   office,   Abhishek   Singh   carried   Sunil   Paswan   and
the weapons as pillion rider on the said motorcycle on the evening of
26.9.2009   at   about   7:00   PM,   where   Sunil   Paswan   then   shot   the
deceased.
4. The   Learned   Additional   District   Judge,   in   Session   Trial   No.
76/2010,   seized   of   the   trial   against   Sunil   Paswan,   Maghavendra
Pratap   Singh   @   Pankaj   Singh,   Akhileshwar   Pratap   Singh   @   Lalit
Singh,   and     Sidkant   Tiwari   @   Pappu   Tiwari;   and   in   Sessions   Case
166/2010,   Mannu Singh @ Gyanendra Singh @ Manvendra Singh @
Abhishek Singh, Satish Tripathi, and Ganeshdutt Mishra. 
A   total   of   twenty­   eight   witnesses   were   examined,   and   the
Trial Court framed eight issues for consideration. Issues A, B and C
concern   the   instant   appellant.   They   are;   A)   whether   the   accused
persons   have   in   agreement   with   each   other   and,   in   pursuance   of

4
criminal conspiracy, murdered the deceased; B) whether the accused
have in agreement with each other and with the intention to screen
each   other   from   punishment   concealed   particular   articles   such   as
the   motorcycle,   pistol,   cartridges,   scarf,   etc.  and   C)   whether   Pankaj
Singh   has   been   found   in   possession   of   two   9mm   pistols,   their
magazines   and   thirty­three   live   cartridges   without   possessing   the
requisite licence thereof.
5. The Learned Additional District Judge disposed of both the cases
with   a   common   judgement   dated   25.03.2013.   by   which   out   of   the
seven persons named above, one, namely, Akhileshwar Pratap Singh,
was   acquitted,   and   others   were   convicted   and   sentenced   under
various   provisions   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code,   1860   and   in   certain
cases under provisions of the Arms Act, 1959. 
6.   A   total   of   five   appeals   were   filed   before   the   High   Court.   The
status of all accused persons is as under: 
Accused Charge Trial Court High Court
1. Sunil Paswan S. 302/120B, 
201(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 @  S. 302/120B,  Convicted. Life  Acquitted.

5
Gyanendra Singh @ 
Manvendra Singh @ 
Abhishek Singh  201(1), 120B IPC imprisonment.
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 Court.
The Impugned Judgment
9. In the appeal preferred by the convicts (five in number) in terms
of   the   impugned   Judgment,   the   High   Court,   while   acquitting   all   the
other convicts, namely, Satish Tripathi, Ganesh Datt Mishra, Mannu
Singh, and Sunil Paswan, has confirmed the conviction and sentence
awarded to Pankaj Singh as reproduced above. In doing so, the Court
found the testimonies of Ashish Agrawal (PW­1), Naresh Mandal (PW­
6),   Avinash   Tirki   (PW­7)   and   Inspector   J.S.   Saggu   (PW­23),

6
Investigation   Officer   sufficient   enough   to   prove   the   guilt   of   Pankaj
Singh   warranting   conviction   and   sentence.   In   paragraph   49   of   its
Judgment, the High Court observed as under:
“49.   On   due   consideration,   the   prosecution   has
proved   entire   circumstantial   evidence   against   the
appellant   Madvendra.   The   circumstances   are   fully
established consistent only with the hypothesis of the
guilt   of   the   accused   and   that   is   not   explainable   by
any   other   circumstances   except   that   appellant
Madhvendra   is   guilty   and   evidence   collected   by   the
prosecution is of the conclusive nature and tendency.
The   chain   of   evidence   is   complete,   it   shows   in   all
human   probability   the   act   must   have   been   done   by
the   accused.   The   Prosecution   has   duly   proved   that
appellant Madhvendra had killed Gowardhan Agrawal
and was also in possession of fire arm and cartridges
in   contravention   of   relevant   provisions   of   Arms   Act
and  had  caused  disappearance   of  evidence   of  offence
committed   by   concealing   the   pistol,   cartridges   and
other   articles.   The   conviction   awarded   to   accused
Madhvendra   does   not   call   for   any   interference.   The
same is well founded.”
Consideration of the Evidence on Record 
10. 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. 
11. 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.   P­15),   which   was

7
purportedly made before the police officer (PW­23) in the presence   of
independent   witnesses   namely,   Naresh   Mandal   (PW­6)   and   Avinash
Tirki (PW­7).
12. It   will   be   helpful   to   refer   to   the   general   principle   of   cases
revolving   around   circumstantial   evidence   as   encapsulated   by   Vijay
Shankar   v.   State   of   Haryana   (2015)   12   SCC   644 .   The   relevant
portion 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   the   testimony   of   this   witness,   this   Court   confines   the

8
discussions   only   concerning   the   present   appellant,   namely   Pankaj
Singh.
14. Interestingly, neither   of the  independent  witness (PW  6 and  PW
7)   supported   the   prosecution   case.   Despite   extensive   cross­
examination conducted by the Public Prosecutor, nothing substantial
could   be   elicited   from   their   testimonies   indicating   any   guilt   of   the
accused.   Noticeably,   both   the   witnesses   are   rustic   villagers   working
as daily  wagers, have deposed to  have signed blank papers, and are
not residents of the area.
15. A   perusal   of   the   testimony   of   PW­6   unrefutably   reveals   the
witness   to   have   signed   documents   which   were   blank,   purportedly
used by the police to strengthen this case for the commission of the
offence. 
16. PW­6,   while   stating   that   he   does   not   recognize   the   accused,
admits that his signatures are on several documents. He further says
that   he   had   signed   blank   papers   under   threat   from   police   officials.
Such a statement is uncontroverted as the record does not reflect any
cross­examination on this issue or any other, for that matter.  `
17. We also notice that PW­7, one of the persons on whom reliance
was   placed   by   the   courts   below,   states   that   he   does   not   know   the

9
accused persons and that he had come to know from having perused
newspapers that the deceased was murdered.
18. We   may   also   observe   that   PW­1,   namely,   Ashish   Agrawal,
nephew   of   the   deceased,   has   not   made   out   any   person   to   be
responsible   for   the   offence,   nor   has   he   expressed   any   doubt   or
pointed   fingers   against   any   of   the   accused,   much   less   the   present
appellant. He states he has “no information as to how many persons,
how hit to uncle with bullet coming with what mode.”
19. The   testimony   of   the   Investigating   Officer   Inspector   J.S.   Saggu
(PW­23)   runs   into   97   pages.   Close   examination   of   the   same   reveals
that   the   witness   miserably   failed   to   investigate   as   is   expected   and
required of a police officer to investigate a crime of murder, especially
when   not   even   a   single   eyewitness   exists,   and   the   entire   case   rests
entirely on circumstantial evidence. 
20. The   homicidal   death   of   Shri   Goverdhan   Aggarwal   is   not   in
dispute.   Be   that   as   it   may,   it   has   come   in   the   testimony   of   the
Investigating   Officer   that   on   27.9.2009,   after   registration   of   the
complaint,   he   visited   the   spot;   carried   out   the   preliminary
investigation;   sent   the   dead   body   for   post­mortem   and   collected
several incriminating articles. 

10
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   co­
accused   Sunil   Paswan   (Ex.   P­13)   to   the   effect   that   the   former   could
get   recovered   pistol/bullets/live   cartridges   from   the   house   of   co­
accused 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 regarding him being able to
support   the   recovery   of   arms   and   ammunition   from   the   house
allegedly   belonging   to   Abhishek   Singh.   Under   the   statement,   the
incriminating material, i.e., three guns (one with an empty cartridge);

11
thirty­   three   live   cartridges   of   9mm;   six   empty   9  mm   cartridges   and
four   empty   9   mm   cartridges,   were   recovered   vide   memo   Ex.   P­14.
They were sent for analysis to the laboratory at Chandigarh. Further,
his statement shows that the accused, Pankaj Singh, was arrested on
22.10.2019 vide memo Ex. P­21/P­22. 
24. Now   significantly,   the   witness   (P.W.   23)   admits   that   the
statements   of   neither   Sunil   Paswan   nor   Pankaj   Singh   have   been
recorded by him, in his hand, or by any other named persons, under
his   instructions.   If   that   were   so,   it   raises   the   question   as   to   who
prepared   these   memos,   which   still   needs   to   be   answered   by   the
prosecution. 
25. Pertinent   to   note   here   is   that   no   direct   evidence   is   available
which   firmly   proves   the   ballistic   report,   i.e.,   the   expert's   report.
Further, neither the expert who analysed and conducted the chemical
analysis nor the author of the report stand examined.  
26. Statement   of   the   Investigating   Officer   that   appellant   Pankaj
Singh   was   called   to   the   police   station   itself   is   uninspiring   in
confidence,   for   there   is   no   written   communication   on   record   which
reflects the same. Further, it is also not his version that he was called
by   any   other   mode   or   that   the   co­accused   had   brought   him   to   the
police station.

12
27. We   find   PW­23   not   to   have   placed   on   record   any   case   diary
indicating his movements to the spot of recovery. In light of the given
facts   and   circumstances,   this   fact   acquires   significance.   It   is   also
observed   that  before   arresting   the   accused,   no   information  was  ever
supplied   to   the   family   members   of   any   of   the   accused   persons.
Moreover,   some   of   the   accused,   residents   of   other   States,   for
instance,   Uttar   Pradesh,   were   arrested   without   supplying   any
information   to   their   relatives.   This   is   in   contravention   to   the
directions issued in  D.K Basu v. State of WB (1997) 1 SCC 416,  the
relevant portion thereof is as under:­
“(3) A person who has been arrested or detained and
is   being   held   in   custody   in   a   police   station   or
interrogation   centre   or   other   lock­up,   shall   be
entitled to have one friend or relative or other person
known to him or having interest in his welfare 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

13
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 them? 
30. 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. 
31. For the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the
Indian   Penal   Code,   1860,   to   be   established,   an   agreement   between
the   parties   to   do   an   unlawful   act   must   exist.   In   some   cases,   direct

14
evidence to establish conspiracy may be absent, but when the lack of
evidence is apparent, it is not safe to hold a person guilty under this
section. To prove the offence of criminal conspiracy, it is imperative to
show   a   meeting   of   the   minds   between   the   conspirators   for   the
intended   common   object.   It   was   observed   by   a   two­judge   bench   of
this   Court   in   Parveen   v.   State   of   Haryana,   2021   SCC   OnLine   SC
1184,  that “A few bits here and a few bits there on which prosecution
relies, cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with
the commission of crime of criminal conspiracy.”
32. Keeping   this   abovesaid   principle   in   view,   we   believe   that   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   co­accused   have   been   acquitted   by   the   courts
below,   meaning   they   were   innocent   of   the   crime,   the   fundamental
requirement of a criminal conspiracy is not met. 
33. Needless   to   say,   the   charge   of   criminal   conspiracy   also   fails   on
the ground that a single person cannot hatch a conspiracy. 

15
34. So   far   as   the   second   question   is   concerned,   we   may   refer   to
recent judgment of this Court in  Geeta Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2022 SCC OnLine 57 , wherein it was observed that the High Court,
by   virtue   of   being   the   First   Appellate   Court   ought   to   reappreciated
and   discussed   the   evidence   on   record.     Had   that   been   done
completely in the present case, the 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

16
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 he (a) did not examine the owner of the
house;   (b)   did   not   enter   his   movement   in   the   case   diary;   (c)   did   not
record that he took the accused for effecting the recovery; (d) was not
able to describe clearly the area from where the recovery was effected;
(e) admits both the independent witnesses, who do not belong to the
area   from   where   the   recoveries   were   effected;   (f)   does   not   associate
any   of   the   residents   of   the   area   for   conducting   the   search;   (g)   does
not   examine   any   of   the   residents   for   carrying   out   any   further
investigation and (h) Most importantly he admits that both the memo
of   arrest   as   also   the   recovery   not   to   have   been   prepared   by   him   or
bearing   his   signature   and   the   same   too,   have   many   corrections   and
over­writing,   thus   reducing   the   correctness   and   authenticity   of   this
document.
36. Furthermore, he is not clear about the description of the articles
recovered.   Illustratively,   in   the   memo,   he   records   one   black   colour
scarf   to   have   been   recovered,   but   on   a   pointed   query   put   by   the
Court,   he   admitted   that   not   to   be   so   but   only   a   black   cloth   which

17
undoubtedly cannot be equated to a scarf. Furthermore, there needs
to be more clarity in his mind about whether the tank from where the
articles were recovered was full of water. 
37. It has come on record that the recovered arms and ammunition
were   first   sent   to   the   laboratory   at   Raipur   and,   after   that,   to   the
laboratory at Chandigarh. However, none had come forward to prove
the   report   received   from   the   said   laboratories.   Furthermore,   there   is
nothing on the record besides any other scientific evidence linking the
accused to the recovered articles. 
38. The Investigating Officer is the person tasked with determining a
direction,   the   pace,   manner   and   method   of   the   investigation.     In
Amarnath   Chaubey   v.   Union   of   India   (2021)   11   SCC   80 ,   it   was
observed   that   the   police   has   a   primary   duty   to   investigate   upon
receiving   the   report   of   the   commission   of   crime.       In   Manohar   Lal
Sharma   v.   Union   of   India   (2014)   2   SCC   532 ,   this   Court   observed
that one of the responsibilities of the police is protection of life, liberty
and   property   of   citizens.     The   investigation   of   offences   to   bring   the
offender to the book and facilitate the ultimate search for truth is one
of the important duties the police has to perform.   This is a statutory

18
duty   under   the   Cr.P.C.   and   is   also   a   constitutional   obligation
ensuring the maintenance 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 commission of an
offence   cognizable   in   nature.     Section   156   lays   down   the   power   of
investigation;   Section   157   the   procedure   thereof;   Section   160   the
power   to   require   attendance   of   a   witness,   Section   161   conduct

19
examination   of   such   witness,   etc.     Section   172   requires   such   police
officer to maintain a case diary and Section 173 lays down the format
and the procedure for the report to be issued by such officer.  
41. This   Court   has   in   Pooja   Pal   v.   Union   of   India   (2016)   3   SCC
135 , expounded as under for criminal investigations and its success :
“96.   The   avowed   purpose   of   a   criminal   investigation   and   its
efficacious   prospects   with   the   advent   of   scientific   and   technical
advancements   have   been   candidly   synopsised   in   the   prefatory
chapter   dealing   with   the   history   of   criminal   investigation   in   the
treatise on   Criminal Investigation — Basic Perspectives   by Paul B.
Weston and Renneth M. Wells:
“Criminal   investigation   is   a   lawful   search   for   people   and   things
useful   in   reconstructing   the   circumstances   of   an   illegal   act   or
omission and the mental state accompanying it. It is probing from
the   known   to   the   unknown,   backward   in   time,   and   its   goal   is   to
determine  truth as far as it can be discovered in any post­factum
inquiry .
Successful   investigations   are   based   on   fidelity,   accuracy   and
sincerity in lawfully searching for the true facts of an event under
investigation and on an equal faithfulness, exactness, and probity
in   reporting   the   results   of   an   investigation .   Modern   investigators
are persons who stick to the truth and are absolutely clear about
the   time   and   place   of   an   event   and   the   measurable   aspects   of
evidence.   They   work   throughout   their   investigation   fully
recognising that even a minor contradiction or error may destroy
confidence in their investigation.
The   joining   of   science   with   traditional   criminal
investigation   techniques   offers   new   horizons   of   efficiency   in
criminal   investigation.   New   perspectives   in   investigation   bypass
reliance   upon   informers   and   custodial   interrogation   and
concentrate   upon   a   skilled   scanning   of   the   crime   scene   for
physical   evidence   and   a   search   for   as   many   witnesses   as
possible.   Mute   evidence   tells   its   own   story   in   court,   either   by   its

20
own   demonstrativeness   or   through   the   testimony   of   an   expert
witness involved in its scientific testing . Such evidence may serve
in   lieu   of,   or   as   corroboration   of,   testimonial   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
had   an   adverse   impact   on   the   case   of   either   of   the   parties.   The
investigating   officer   is   supposed   to   investigate   an   offence
avoiding   any   kind   of   mischief   or   harassment   to   either   of   the
party.   He   has   to   be   fair   and   conscious   so   as   to   rule   out   any
possibility   of   bias   or   impartial   conduct   so   that   any   kind   of
suspicion   to   his   conduct   may   be   dispelled   and   the   ethical

21
conduct   is   absolutely   essential   for   investigative   professionalism.
The investigating officer
“is   not   merely   to   bolster   up   a   prosecution   case   with   such
evidence   as   may   enable   the   court   to   record   a   conviction
but to bring out the real unvarnished truth”.
 
44. Keeping   in   view   the   aforesaid   principles   and   applying   them   to
the present set of facts, 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. 
 Conclusion 
45. 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

22
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. 
46. Given   the   above,   the   Judgment   dated   14.1.2016   passed   by   the
High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.468 of
2013   titled   Maghavendra   Pratap   Singh   @   Pankaj   Singh   v.   State   of
Chhattisgarh is set aside and the appeal is allowed.   
47. The three questions noted above are answered accordingly.
48. If not already released, the accused is directed to be set at liberty
forthwith.
     Interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of. 
...........................................J.
          (B.R. GAVAI)
.........................................J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
Dated : 24th April, 2023;
Place  : New Delhi.

23