The facts giving rise to the present appeals lie in a narrow compass and centre around a criminal conspiracy, allegedly hatched by the family members of the appellant to murder the deceased, Kunal.The case of the prosecution as per the charge-sheet is that in the month of March 1999, deceased Kunal organised an entertainment show, sponsored by the father of the appellant.During the event, the deceased was introduced to the sister of the appellant, Hema.The acquaintance blossomed into love between the two.Appellant's father lodged a complaint alleging that the deceased had kidnapped his daughter.The complainant, namely, the father of the deceased, also reported the matter to the Pune Police.Sometime in June, 2000, Kunal contacted his father and informed him that he was at Gauhati with Hema.Thereupon, the complainant and his wife brought Kunal and Hema to Mumbai.On persuasion by the complainant and his wife, Hema agreed to return and stay with her parents and the marriage between Kunal and Hema is stated to have been annulled.In December, the complainant filed complaints with the S.P., Satara and the Additional Commissioner of Police, Pune against the father of the appellant alleging that he had abused him over the telephone.The complainant also alleged that even thereafter, threatening calls were made by the appellant, his sister, Hema and father.However, the things seem to have settled down with the intervention of the Advocate of the complainant.On 21st April, 2001, the deceased (Kunal) left Panchgani (where he was living with the parents) for Mahabaleshwar in his maruti car.At about 8:30 p.m., a taxi-driver informed the complainant that Kunal was lying in a pool of blood on Mahabaleshwar road.The complainant rushed to the spot and took his son in an injured condition to the hospital where he was declared brought dead.The complainant lodged an F.I.R at Mahabaleshwar Police Station against unknown persons and an offence was registered under Section 302 of the IPC.Therefore, in order to teach a lesson to the complainant they hatch conspiracy to kill his only son, Kunal.Accordingly accused No.1 contacted accused No.6 Suresh Jhajara and further informed him the complainant and his son should be taught a lesson as Kunal Parihar betrayed him.Hence should be taught a lesson and further asked to carry out future plan.Accused No.6, contacted accused No.7 and included him in the aforesaid conspiracy.J U D G M E N TREPORTABLECRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 744 OF 2008Arising Out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.5514 of 2007WITHCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 745 OF 2008[Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.5515 of 2007]D.K. JAIN, J.:Leave granted.These two appeals are directed against orders dated 23rd June, 2006 and 19th September, 2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No. 288 of 2005 and in Criminal Writ Petition No.1884 of 2006 respectively.By the first order, the High Court has repelled the challenge made to order dated 23rd March, 2005, in Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2004, whereby the Sessions Judge, Satara had affirmed the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") for discharge.However, on the next day, the complainant levelled allegation that since marriage of Kunal had been fixed with another girl, the appellant and his family members had developed a grudge and had, therefore, hatched a conspiracy with co-accused Umesh, Suresh, Bhavarlal Sharma, Captain Sharma to murder Kunal.On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before the Juvenile Court, Satara, being below 18 years of age, and against fifteen other persons, which included his father (A-1), mother (A-2), sister (A-4), a family friend (A-11), manager of his father (A-12), in Sessions Court, Satara.All of them have been arraigned as members to the conspiracy to murder Kunal.The appellant, herein, and accused A-1, A-2, A-4 to A-7, A-11 and A-12 have been prosecuted for offences under Section 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the I.P.C."), whereas accused A-7 to A-10 and A-13 to A-16 have been prosecuted for offences under Section 302 read with Section 120B and under the Arms Act.The appellant filed an application for discharge before the Juvenile Justice Board, under Section 227 of the Code.The Juvenile Justice Board by order dated 1st October, 2004, rejected the said application.Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred a criminal appeal before the Sessions Judge, Satara.Still aggrieved, the appellant moved a revision application before the High Court.Vide order dated 23rd June, 2006, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision.Both these orders were challenged by them by means of two Criminal Writ Petitions (Nos.1283 and 1284 of 2006).Inter-alia, observing that the circumstances highlighted by the prosecution, even if accepted in entirety, only created a suspicion of motive, these were not sufficient to make out a case for conviction of the accused and some suspicion or motive cannot serve as a sufficient ground for framing of charge against them.Accordingly, all the four accused/petitioners were discharged.Emboldened by the said order, on 4th August, 2006, the appellant filed a Criminal Writ Petition (No.1884 of 2006) under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code for quashing of aforenoted order dated 23rd March, 2005, passed by the Sessions Judge, Satara and for discharge of the charges framed under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the I.P.C. Expressing surprise over the fact that this petition had been filed though the order impugned in the petition stood confirmed on dismissal of criminal revision on 23rd June, 2006, the learned Judge rejected the plea of the appellant that in the light of order dated 7th July, 2006, in the case of co-accused, by reason of parity, he was also entitled to be discharged.Inter-alia, observing that earlier order dated 23rd June, 2006 in the case of the appellant, which was certainly relevant for deciding the Criminal Writ Petitions No.1283 & 1284 of 2006, had not been noticed in order dated 7th July, 2006 (by the Chief Justice), vide order dated 19th September, 2006, the learned Judge dismissed the petition.As noted above, both the orders, dated 23rd June, 2006 and 19th September, 2006 are challenged in these two appeals.At this juncture, two other significant subsequent developments deserve to be noted.Secondly, relying on order dated 7th July, 2006, the father (A-1) of the appellant, termed as the main accused in the charge-sheet, filed an application before the Sessions Judge for discharge from all the charges.Taking note of the said order passed by the High Court, and inter-alia, observing that apart from the fact that the alleged threats are vague and are inadequate to connect the said accused with the crime, vide order dated 14th May, 2007, the Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that there was absolutely no material on the basis whereof a reasonable likelihood of the said accused being convicted could be predicted.Accordingly, he has discharged the said accused.Thus, as on date, the father (A-1), the mother (A-2), the sister (A-4) of the appellant and his two other associates (A-11 & A-Accused No.1 to 4, contacted accused No.16, through accused No.6 and 7, accused No.16 pending is a notorious criminal.Criminal cases are pending against him in the District Court of Pune.In the offence regarding body, accused No.7 contacted him through witnesses Atul Lohar in order to carry out the aforesaid plan.Accused No.7 asked accused No.8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15 to joint the aforesaid conspiracy and in order to carry out the aforesaid conspiracy successfully accused No.7 purchased one Maruti Car No.14 D-3027 from witness Afzal Khan Ibrahim Khan, resident of Dehu Road and also Motor Cycle No.By using the aforesaid vehicles accused No.7 to 10 and 13 to 15 have committed ghastly murder of Kunal.In order to carry out the aforesaid conspiracy successfully accused No.7 has used revolver, khukri, sickle, sword and iron bar and supplied it to accused No.8 to 10 and from 13 to 15, by using the aforesaid weapons the aforesaid persons have assaulted Kunal Parihar by which he sustained grave injuries and ultimately died.Hence accused No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 12 have charged been under Sections 302, 120B IPC and accused No.7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15 and 16 have charged u/s 302 read with 120B IPC and under Arms Act Section 3 and 25."bar and supplied it to accused No.8 to 10[Emphasis supplied]Thus, according to the prosecution version, when accused, A-1 to A-5, A-11 and A-12 learnt about the marriage of Kunal with some other girl, they hatched a conspiracy to teach a lesson to the father of Kunal, the deceased.In furtherance thereof, accused A-1 contacted one of the assassins to kill Kunal.It is alleged that accused A-1 to A-4 also contacted accused A-16, a notorious criminal.In other words, the gravamen of the accusation by the prosecution is that it is accused A-1 to A-5, A-11 and A-12 who had hatched the conspiracy; acted in concert to give effect to their plan to get Kunal murdered and in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy, the other accused facilitated commission of the said crime.From the material on record, it is manifestly clear that it was the family members of the appellant, one of their employees and a friend who allegedly had all entered into an agreement to eliminate the deceased.Furthermore, in its order dated 7th July, 2006, the High Court has opined that the circumstances, relied upon by the prosecution, even if accepted in its entirety, only create a suspicion of motive, which is not sufficient to bring home an offence of murder.As noted above, State's petition for special leave against the said judgment has already been dismissed.We are, therefore, of the view that in the light of the subsequent events, namely, the orders of the High Court dated 7th July, 2006 in Criminal Writ Petitions No. 1283 & 1284 of 2006, discharging appellant's mother, sister and two close associates, accused Nos.2, 4, 11 and 12 respectively; order dated 30th April, 2007 passed by this Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition preferred by the State against order dated 7th July, 2006 and order dated 14th May, 2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Satara, discharging the father (A-1) of the appellant, stated to be the mastermind behind the entire conspiracy, for offences under Sections 120B and 302 I.P.C., on same set of circumstances and accusations, no sufficient ground survives to proceed against the appellant for the aforementioned offences.

Cited provisions: Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code