Motive and suspicious mobile data alone are insufficient to sustain a conviction for criminal conspiracy.

The appellant, Pulkit, along with three others, was tried for the murder of Ashok Bakdiya in 2008.

While the others were convicted of murder, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC for criminal conspiracy.

The prosecution relied on circumstances including a prior dispute/motive, an alleged request for a 'recce' of the deceased, overhead conversations at a public place, and a disclosure statement leading to the seizure of a mobile phone used to contact a co-accused after the crime.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the appellant's appeal, though it discarded the testimony of two key witnesses (PW3 and PW5) who alleged police coercion.

The appellant challenged this before the Supreme Court, arguing a lack of evidence regarding a prior agreement or meeting of minds.

1. Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

2. Whether the disclosure statement and subsequent seizure of a mobile phone and Call Detail Records (CDR) constituted admissible and conclusive evidence of the appellant’s involvement?

The Court applied Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding criminal conspiracy, requiring proof of an agreement to do an illegal act.

It relied on the foundational principles of circumstantial evidence established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, which mandates that circumstances must be "conclusive in nature" and exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, limiting the admissibility of custodial statements only to the "discovery of a fact".

Requirements for electronic evidence admissibility under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

The Court found that once the High Court discarded the testimonies of PW3 and PW5 due to illegal detention, the remaining evidence was insufficient.

The "motive" cited—a slapping incident six months prior—was deemed too remote and insufficient to sustain a conviction on its own.

The Court characterized PW9 (who allegedly overheard the conspiracy) as a "chance witness" whose testimony lacked conclusive details.

Regarding the disclosure statement, the Court noted that the identity of the co-accused was already known to the police, rendering the "discovery" moot.

The CDR evidence was dismissed because the mobile was registered to a third party (Kailash), there was no proof the co-accused possessed the specific phone, and significantly, there were no records showing contact prior to the occurrence to prove a pre-arranged conspiracy.

The Court answered that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and failed to rule out the hypothesis of innocence.

The Court set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and High Court, allowed the appeal, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.