All co-conspirators acquitted. He was still convicted. The Supreme Court fixed it.

One man, a murder conspiracy, and a Supreme Court lesson: you cannot conspire alone

When Maghavendra Pratap Singh — known as Pankaj Singh — was convicted for the murder of businessman Goverdhan Aggarwal, he was one of seven accused. The trial court in Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, sentenced him and five others to life. Four years later, the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur acquitted all but him. That left Pankaj Singh as the sole convict in a case built on criminal conspiracy. The Supreme Court of India asked a question that should have been asked much earlier: if everyone else is innocent, who exactly was he conspiring with?

The answer, delivered by a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice B.R. Gavai on 24 April 2023, was unequivocal. A single person cannot hatch a conspiracy. The conviction was set aside. The accused was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.

Two shots, one dead, and a chain of custody that fell apart

The story began on 26 September 2009. Goverdhan Aggarwal, a businessman, was shot dead by two men on a motorcycle. He had been receiving extortion threats. The police registered a case and, over time, charged seven persons. The prosecution's case was that Pankaj Singh had conspired with the others — by passing on information about the deceased's movements and by concealing the weapons used in the crime.

The trial before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, ended on 25 March 2013. Six of the seven accused were convicted. One, Akhileshwar Pratap Singh, was acquitted. Pankaj Singh and the others appealed to the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur.

On 14 January 2016, the High Court delivered a split verdict of sorts. It acquitted all the other convicts. But it confirmed Pankaj Singh's conviction under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 25(1)(1-b)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959. The High Court held that Pankaj Singh had conspired in the murder by conveying information about the deceased's movements and by concealing weapons.

That left Pankaj Singh alone. He approached the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 915 of 2016.

What the prosecution actually had — and what it didn't

The case against Pankaj Singh rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. There was no eyewitness to the conspiracy. The prosecution relied on three things: disclosure statements made by co-accused, the recovery of arms allegedly effected through Pankaj Singh, and the testimony of the Investigating Officer (IO).

But the Supreme Court found that every link in this chain was broken.

The independent witnesses — the ones who were supposed to have seen the recoveries — turned hostile. They told the court that they had been forced to sign blank papers by the police. The ballistic report, which could have linked the recovered weapon to the crime, was never proved. The IO's case diary entries were missing, incomplete, or unsigned. The IO had not recorded his own movements. He had not prepared or signed critical memos. He had not associated local witnesses. He had not even examined the owner of the house from where one recovery was allegedly made.

The Bench, led by Justice Sanjay Karol, catalogued these failures with precision. The IO had violated multiple provisions of Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — the very chapter that governs police investigations. The Court cited Amarnath Chaubey v. Union of India (2021) 11 SCC 80 to remind that the police has a primary duty to investigate upon receiving a report of commission of crime. It cited Common Cause v. Union of India (2015) 6 SCC 332 to stress the high degree of responsibility on the investigating agency to ensure that an innocent person is not subjected to a criminal trial. And it cited Pooja Pal v. Union of India (2016) 3 SCC 135 to hold that a criminal investigation must be based on fidelity, accuracy, and sincerity — and that even minor contradictions can destroy confidence.

The investigation in this case, the Court found, was anything but faithful, accurate, or sincere.

The witness rule the Supreme Court applied

The Court then turned to the standard for conviction on circumstantial evidence. It cited Vijay Shankar v. State of Haryana (2015) 12 SCC 644, which itself drew from the landmark Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116. The test is well known: the circumstances must be cogently established, they must point unerringly towards guilt, they must form a complete chain, and they must be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than guilt.

The Supreme Court found that the prosecution's evidence failed this test. The chain was incomplete. The circumstances did not point unerringly towards Pankaj Singh. There were multiple hypotheses consistent with his innocence — not least the fact that all his alleged co-conspirators had been acquitted.

The conspiracy problem: you need at least two people

This was the heart of the case. The High Court had confirmed Pankaj Singh's conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy). But it had acquitted every other person charged with conspiracy. The Supreme Court asked: can a single person be convicted of criminal conspiracy?

The answer was no.

The Court cited Parveen v. State of Haryana (2021 SCC OnLine SC 1184) for the proposition that a few bits here and there cannot be held adequate for connecting an accused with the commission of criminal conspiracy. More fundamentally, the Court held that the very definition of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC requires two or more persons agreeing to do an illegal act. If all co-conspirators are acquitted, the foundation of the charge collapses. A single person cannot hatch a conspiracy.

The Court also noted that the High Court, as the first appellate court, had failed in its duty to re-appreciate and discuss the evidence on record. Citing Geeta Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2022 SCC OnLine 57), the Bench observed that the High Court had not returned a finding on the conspiracy charge despite acquitting the co-accused. This was a fatal omission.

THE PLAY: If you are defending a client charged with criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, and all co-accused have been acquitted, move immediately to quash the conspiracy charge. A single person cannot conspire. The Supreme Court has now made this explicit.

What the post-mortem actually said — and what the IO didn't do

The Supreme Court did not stop at the conspiracy point. It went through the entire investigation with a fine-tooth comb. The IO had failed to comply with the guidelines laid down in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 — he had not informed the relatives of accused persons who were arrested from other states. The recovery memos were not signed by the IO. The case diary entries were not maintained. The independent witnesses who had allegedly witnessed the recoveries denied the prosecution's version and alleged coercion.

The Court observed that the IO is tasked with determining the direction, pace, manner, and method of investigation. Investigation is both a statutory duty under the CrPC and a constitutional obligation ensuring the maintenance of peace and upholding the rule of law. When the IO fails in this duty, the entire prosecution case is compromised.

Why this matters in practice

For advocates, this judgment is a powerful tool. It reinforces three critical points. First, a conspiracy charge cannot survive the acquittal of all co-conspirators. Second, in circumstantial evidence cases, the standard is certainty, not probability — and the chain must be complete. Third, a shoddy investigation — one that violates Chapter XII CrPC, fails to maintain case diaries, and relies on hostile witnesses — cannot sustain a conviction.

For CFOs and founders, the lesson is different but equally important. This case is a reminder that the criminal justice system does not always get it right the first time. A flawed investigation can lead to a wrongful conviction. But the system also has mechanisms — appeals, higher courts, and rigorous standards of proof — to correct those errors. If you or someone in your organisation is ever caught in a criminal investigation, the quality of that investigation matters. A fair, transparent, and procedurally sound investigation is not just a legal requirement — it is a safeguard against injustice.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The judgment of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur dated 14 January 2016 was set aside. Pankaj Singh was acquitted on all charges. If not already released, he was directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

The bottom line: A conviction based on a broken investigation and a conspiracy that never existed cannot stand — and the Supreme Court will not hesitate to say so.