9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... j 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... @ 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 Court. The Impugned Judgment 9. In the appeal preferred by the convicts (five in number) in terms of the impugned Judgment, the High Court, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 discussions only concerning the present appellant, namely Pankaj Singh. 14. Interestingly, neither of the independe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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 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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 examination of such witness, etc. Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertainty 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 conduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
