Whether the circumstantial evidence on record was robust enough to sustain the appellant’s conviction for criminal conspiracy under Section 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), following the High Court’s exclusion of key witness testimonies.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the concurrent conviction orders passed by the Trial Court and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The Court ruled that the remaining chain of circumstantial evidence was fragmented, lacked conclusiveness, and failed to establish a prior agreement or meeting of minds, thereby granting the appellant the benefit of doubt and acquitting him of all charges.
1. Factual Background and Trial Stage
- The Incident: On June 18, 2008, one Ashok Bakdiya was murdered. The initial First Information Report (FIR) was registered against unknown persons by the son of the deceased, with no initial suspicion cast on any specific individual.
- The Accused: Four persons—Tarun, Mithun @ Deepak, Sandeep, and the appellant (Pulkit @ Monu)—were put on trial. The first three were charged as the primary perpetrators under Section 302/34 IPC and the Arms Act, while the appellant was tried strictly for criminal conspiracy to commit murder under Section 302/120B IPC.
- Trial Court Conviction: The Trial Court convicted the appellant based on five primary circumstantial indicators:
- Testimonies of PW3 (Manish) and PW5 (Sonu), who alleged that the appellant asked them to perform a reconnaissance (recce) of the deceased’s movements three days prior to the crime.
- Testimony of PW9 (Yogesh), a chance witness who allegedly overheard the appellant and co-accused Tarun talking abusively about the deceased.
- A police disclosure statement which supposedly revealed the identities of co-accused and led to the seizure of the appellant’s mobile phone.
- An established motive, supported by the deceased’s wife (PW8) and an eyewitness (PW10) who saw the deceased slap the appellant six months prior, triggering a gun threat from the appellant.
- Call Detail Records (CDRs) showing that the appellant contacted co-accused Tarun on the day of the murder.
2. Decision of the High Court
- On appeal, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the appellant’s challenge, but significantly discarded the crucial testimonies of PW3 and PW5. The High Court found that these two witnesses had been illegally detained by the police for several days before their statements were officially recorded, making their accounts unreliable. However, the High Court sustained the conviction by relying on the surviving circumstantial elements.
3. Key Legal Contentions Before the Supreme Court
- Appellant’s Arguments: The appellant’s counsel argued that since the High Court threw out the recce testimonies of PW3 and PW5, the foundational link to a criminal conspiracy collapsed. It was submitted that there was absolutely no evidence of a prior agreement or “meeting of minds” before the incident. The disclosure statement was labeled inadmissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act because the co-accused’s identity was already known to the police prior to the arrest. Furthermore, the mobile phone was not registered in the co-accused’s name, lacked a Section 65B electronic certificate, and the remaining testimonies belonged to unreliable “chance witnesses”.
- State’s Counter-Arguments: The State contended that the High Court erred in discarding PW3 and PW5’s testimonies, as their statements were taken just four days after the murder. The State argued that the combination of proven motive, continuous contact via mobile phone records immediately after the incident, and concurrent findings of guilt from two courts left no room for intervention.
4. Supreme Court’s Analysis and Observations
Standard of Proof for Circumstantial Evidence: The Supreme Court invoked the landmark ruling in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, reiterating that when a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, the proved facts must be robust, conclusive, and consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused’s guilt. The chain of circumstances must be so complete that it leaves no reasonable ground consistent with the innocence of the accused.
The apex court methodically evaluated the prosecution’s remaining circumstantial pillars and found them entirely deficient:
- Absence of Prior Agreement: To establish a charge of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, there must be direct or circumstantial evidence of a prior agreement to commit an illegal act. In this case, there was no direct or digital evidence (such as call logs) showing that the conspirator and the perpetrators were in concert before the crime took place. There was also no financial trail or exchange of consideration.
- Infirmity of the Chance Witness (PW9): The testimony that the appellant and co-accused were seen talking abusively about the deceased a few days before the incident was heavily diluted. The witness was a “chance witness” who merely overheard a fleeting conversation while parking his vehicle, and the investigating officer admitted that the witness did not initial disclose any “abusive words” during the early investigation.
- Inadmissibility of the Disclosure Statement: Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, a custodial confession is only valid to the exact extent that it leads to the discovery of a new The Court noted that the identity of the co-accused (Tarun) was already known to the police through other witness statements recorded before the appellant’s arrest, meaning no new discovery occurred.
- Vulnerability of the Call Detail Records (CDRs): The prosecution relied heavily on mobile communications made on the day of the incident. However, the Court highlighted that the mobile number contacted did not belong to the co-accused but to a third party named Kailash. There was no proof that the co-accused was in possession of that phone. Additionally, the electronic records lacked the mandatory admissibility certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, and crucially, showed zero contact prior to the murder.
- Motive Alone Cannot Ground Conviction: Regarding the physical altercation six months prior, the Court noted a distinct lack of proximity between that dispute and the date of the crime. More importantly, the Court re-emphasized that while motive is an essential link during investigations, it cannot replace actual proof of conspiracy or act as the sole basis for a criminal conviction.
5. Final Order and Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of incriminating circumstances pointing undeniably toward the appellant’s guilt. Because the elements failed the threshold of being proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction orders of both the Trial Court and the High Court, and acquitted Pulkit @ Monu of all charges, ordering his immediate release.
2026 INSC 543
Pulkit @ Monu V. State of Madhya Pradesh (D.O.J. 20.05.2026)
