I l/ //Il/lll/I ////I/l/ //I/l am: Hman m=a 377a “Kama , wag? gnoyog y $ =__.._> F§H% m Wmn'Z—é’i—u/gé ;9 C/M 1%a’f‘wr 3% UWTIB}: 29 aé Kgj HrFepa- ma 3%? erra‘r tram farT w‘ignocrog HWTIW g§ Ia’rnn far-6r a? 39 @fspgrvT—rw’ (“- WW IT=rr afaa‘T fart wwtgnocrog ggzz $3?! rm gg‘rua 39 29 a§ Waa-aTraazTé UTaT aw FEET WWW fa*6@ AAVOC 0 1521 ghr man aw mwi §F§ waft {Jaw (Tang? gnoyrogzw—u 2 w i/ A‘CW-‘D amaagfw WT$mw 33:. gggam‘ran‘a’ @3 M w XI-HC-78 WW, WW,W ‘ .QR ¢ {it :Zq‘Q f3§FFI' M WW Wm (W) mmm WWW mwm WW%‘WWR ésmm Division Bench: - Hon'bie Mr L C Ehadoo ana Hon'ble Mr. Dhirendra Mishra J’J'. 17-8-2006 Mrs. Kiran Jain, con. Mr. D.K. Gwair-e, De. Per LC. Bhcdoo, J: - This appeal is directed againsf fhe judgmenf of conviction nnd order of sentence dated 11"" Judge, Dham‘rari in» Sessi ’5essions Judge offer h Lekharum @ Ratimm Sinh Wider Sec‘ria’ns 120-3, 4 accused fa undergo impris undergo impriscnmeu? for ‘ihe I.P.C. and ‘i'o undergo AH fhe sen‘rences are dire The prosecufion c Managing Partner of Amar infarmation report EXP-1 at 7.20 a.m. to the effect nse! for the appeHanTs, pmy Govt Advocafe wifh Mr. Akhil Mishra, Panei Lawyer for the State/respondent. / rch, 1995 passed by the Additionai Sessions ns Tria! No.363/92, whereby learned Additional iding accused/appellants Gotriha @ Remadhur, d Komair Ram guilty for commission of offence O & 362 of the E.P.C., sentenced each of the nment for life under Section 302 of the I.P.C.; to life under Section 302 read with Section 129—5 of .I. for ten yeors under Section 460 of the I.P.C. ted to run concurrently. e, in brief, is that Modon Lunowot (PW-9), the Talkies Cinema Hall of Dhamtori, lodged the first ot Police Station: Dhomtori on 2"“ August, 1992 hot on the previous day‘s rEght at about 9.30 p.m. Orai judgment dictated on Da/‘s. P.T.O. a XI—HC—78 mw,m,m . G>~4744/?s lam-mm H1 294k WW(W> WWW WWW WWW§WW mmwm ésmm he ief'.‘ fhe cinema hall for his house, nex? day in fhe morning af abou? é am. sweeper of the cinema ha” namely, Surendr-a came 1-0 his house and informed fha? inspife of his efforts, Chowki ar of The cinema haii is nof opening fhe door, on which he asked Surendr' fo go back and if fhe Chowkidar is no? opening fhe gafe, fhen he can en er' The cinema hall by scaling 'i'he gale. Affer fen minufes, sweeper Sur dra again came back and informed him The? by scaling he enfered fhe cin ma hall and saw fhaf Chowkidar was lying dead, there was a rope'around ‘l' e neck of ‘ihe Chowkidar and a piece of clofh in his moufh. On hearing is, he informed Vinod Khandelwal over Telephone and immedia‘lely reache ‘i‘o The cinema hall. Vinod Khadelwal also arrived and fhey saw The cinema all and Thereafter, ihey have come fa iodge ‘i'he report The body of howkidar of 'ihe 'l'alkies is lying on fhe grodnd: There is a rope around fh neck of Chowkidar and a piece of clofh in his mom-h. The locks of fhe Offic of cinema hall as well as of The Manager are in broken condifion. An amoun of about Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- and a change of about Rs.400/- as well as one calculator of Casio make HI 809 on which‘Amar has been written with nk have been s'lolen. Rs.4,000/— has also been stolen from the almirah of the Manager. Receiving this report, the 5tation House Officer of the Police Station registered offence under .Seetions 460 & 302 of fhe I.P.C. and lef'l' for the scene of occurrence. He pnepared the site plan EXP-17 of the place of occurrence. After giving nofice to the Ponchos, Panchnama EXP—1 of the _ dead body of Pardesi Ram was pre aared. Clothes and other articles, which ETD. XI-HC—78 EW,W,W Wmo¢o.o.oo .o....o.. .ootm 200 WW(W) maam WWW mw%’wm maatwm %311%IH3TI%2T were on The body of deceased Parc esi Ram, were faken in'io possession under EXP-22. Bur-nf sficks of the ma1'chbox, one shawl and ‘fwo pieces of Bidi were faken info possession under x.P—3 from fhe place of occurrence. One key was aiso mken imo possessia under- Ex.P-4. One lock was Taken info possession under EXP-5. Ano'rhe lock wiih key was Taken info possession under Ex.P-6. Currency noi'es an oiher ifems were iaken ini-o possession under EXP-7 from Amer i‘alkie . Accused Gofriha @ Ramadhar gave memorandum EXP-8 on 18-8-1992 regarding fhe currency nofes as also ihe calculator and in pursuance of Th i‘, currency no‘ies, one radio, one wris‘t wafch, ofher house hold ari'icles, ne box and other ifems were recovered under EXP-9 of fhe insfance of 1'riha. On 19-8-1992 under Ex.P-10 one receipi' book was faken in‘l‘o pos ession from Ram Kumar Dewangan and ano‘iher bill book was Taken info possession under Ex.P—11 from Panchulal. One raincoai was faken inlo possession under Ex.P—12. Ami-her raincoai and pair of shoes were faken inio pass ession from Abdul Rehman under EXP-13. From Ganga Prasad, currency no'i'es were faken in‘l'o possession under EXP— 15. On 20’" of Augusi', 1992,‘second memorandum Ex.P-18 was given by accused Gofriha regarding iron road & Gupfi and in pursuance of ihaf iron rod & Gupii were recovered under EXP-19. Currency noies of Rs.400/- were recovered from one Hemlal under EXP—20. Accused Lekharam @ Ra‘riram Sinha while in police cusi‘ody gave memorandum EXP-21 regarding currency no'i'es and in pursuance of Thai s.400/- were recovered under Ex.P-22. From accused Lekharam one radi , blankei', full pani' and ofher i'i'ems were taken ini-o possession under Ex.P- 3. While in policy cusiody, accused Komal i P.T.O. XI-HC—78 HW,W,W Wm...” . “NW 200 WW(W) WWW WWW WWWWWW mmwm éaWamT Ram gave memorandum EXP-24 an 3-9-1992 ai 9.40 a.m. regarding ‘rhe money which came fa his share and also about The calcuiafor, in pursuance of fha‘l‘, 1'he calculator of Casio make mas faken info possession on fhe same day af abou‘i 1.05 pm. under- Ex.P-25. One wristwatch and full shirt of Kama! Ram were Taken into possession u r EXP-26. The body of Pardesi Ram was senf for posfmori'em examina‘l'ion o Governmenf Hospil'al, Dhamfari, where Dr. A. Kadir (PW-12) conducl'ed po fmorfem on 1'he body and opined fhai' 'l'he cause of dea1'h is asphyxia due 'l'o uffocafion. Af‘l‘er comple‘lion of invesi'i a'l'ion, charge sheei was filed agains‘l' fhe accused persons for commission of offence under Sec‘rions 460, 302 6i 120-8 of ihe IRC. in ihe Courf of Judic al Magis‘l'rafe, Firs‘r Class, Dham‘l'ari, who in +urn commii‘led fhe case io i e Sessions Judge, Raipur, from where learned Addifional Sessions Judge Dhamfari, received fhe case on fransfer for frial. The prosecu'lion in order o esfablish charge} againsf fhe accused persons examined 14 wifnesses. i'he ofher hand, sfafemen‘rs of accused persons were recorded under Sec 'on 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the material appearing against t m in the prosecution evidence, pleaded innocence and stated that they h e been falsely implicated in the crime. However, learned Additional Sessi ns Judge after hearing the arguments of Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused convicted and sentenced each of the accused as entioned in para 1 of this judgment. P.T.O. iIi n e n XI-HC—78 W‘amrm WWW mma§am WW§WW $mm We have heard Mrs. Kiran Jain, learned counse! on behalf of fhe accused/appeilanfs and Mr. D.K. é'rwalre, Depufy Govt. Advoca‘re wifh Mr. Akhil Mishm, Panei Lawyer on beha!f of The Sfafe/responden‘r. cf Pardesi Ram has no‘l' been dispumd by The fad of homicide! dea‘fh iearned counsel for fhe accused/cppellanfs. Even ofherwise, Dr. A. Kadir (PW-12), who conducted posfmorfem on fhe body of deceased Pardesi Ram, has stafed in his evidence 'iha'.‘ 1lhe cause of deafh was suffocafion and asphyxia which can be caused by 'righ‘l'ening of rope around fhe neck. His reper? is EXP-27. Therefare, in view af ihe above evidence and ‘ihe posfmorfem repor‘l' if is esfabiished +ha+ 1'he dea‘rh of Pardesi Ram was homicidai in nai'ure. rNow, coming h: fhe involvemem of ‘ihe occused/appeilan‘i's in i'he crime in ques‘iion, ihere is no ocular evidence in This case: Whole‘case resfs on ihe circumsfan‘lial evidence viz., (i) recovery of calculafor of Cusio make of Amar Talkies a? 1'he inslance of accused Komal Ram: as well as ofher ifems from The accused (ii) recovery of currency notes persons which were purchased by fhe s‘l'olen amount; and (iii) previous conducf of The ac: used persons i.e. as per ‘l'he evidence of Hemlal (PW-7) accused/appellants Gofriha 6i Komal informed him fhaf They are going i'o commi‘l‘ fhefi’ in 'ihe cinema hall and 4-5 days affer fhe inciden‘l‘, accused Gofril‘la pu'l' Rs.200/— or Rs.250/- in his packef and he was fhrea‘l‘ened nol' fo disclose fhis fac‘r to any one. P.T.O. XI—HC—78 EW,W,W o ..o..oo..o.o...oooo¢. WW(W) W$IW WWW WWIWW mmwm %?s1fr?man%¥r 11' is se'med law +ha'r in order 1'0 res? 1'he convic‘l'ion based on fhe circumsfanfial evidence, ihe Courf is required ‘io ascerfain from ihe circums'iamial eVidence as To w fher fhe prosecufion has been able 1'0 esfablish 1'he involvemen? of accu ed in ihe crime in quesfion based on fhe foilowing principies laid down by 1+ e Hon'bie Apex Court 1. the circumsi‘ances from w ch an inference of guili' is soughf 1'0 be drawn, mus1' be cogen'i'ly an firmly esfablished; 2. fhose circumsfances shoul be of a definife Tendency unerringly poin1ing 1'owards guilf of 1'h accused; 3. 1he circumstances, 1aken cumulatively, should form a chain so comple‘l'e Tha‘i' There is no scape from 1he conclusion 1ha1' wi'i'hin all human probabili1'y 1he crim was commi11ed by The accused and none else: and 4. 1he circumstanfial eviden in order 1o sus1'ain convic‘l'ion mus‘l‘ be comple1'e and incapable of xplanafion of any o'lher hypofhesis ‘i'han 1'ha1' of The guilT of The acc sed and such evidence should noT only be consis‘l'enT with The guiIT o The accused buT should be inconsisTenT wiTh his innocence. Now, we shall proceed To scruTinize The evidence adduced by The prosecution in order To connect The accused persons wiTh The crime in quesTion. As far as The recov of Casio calculaTor aT The insTance of accused Komal Ram is concerned, i This connecTion, The evidence adduced by The prosecuTion is of Madan Lu (PW-9), who was The Mdnaging ParTner P.T.O. i c e n WW,WW,W . E .3. .g.‘.7o&(v Wm (W) 31 Qf§ m W WWW WWW wwmm WWWBI'WW %3T%II3TI%ET ‘ of fhe cinema hall, regarding fhe 1 Casio caicuiafor'. Recovery of cah ins'rance of accused Komal Ram in ii Appa Rao (PW-11) as also Invesi‘i perusing fhe evidence of These wi‘i fha'l' fhe prosecufion has u'H'erly ‘I ‘cr-ime in quasi-ion. In fhe firs‘r iden‘rificafion parade. Even fhe nu has been shown 'ro be effected is The inciden'i' took place on 1-8-199 memorandum EXP-8 on 18-8-1992 caicula‘i‘or was ihrown by fhem on 1 was’ef'fec‘red in pursuance of The 1992 af abou‘l’ 9.40 a.m. accuse information EXP-24 regarding fhe fha‘l' offer distribution of money 4 being of no use was Thrown on The 25 shows ThaT The calculaTor was i hefT of currency noTes as weii as of The :uIaTor has been said To be made a'i The 1e presence of Vinod Khandelwal (PW-1) & ;aTing Officer A.5. Giii (PW-14). AfTer ;nesses, we are of The considered opinion ‘ailed in connecTing The accused wiTh The nsTance, The caiculaTor was noT puT To inner in which The recovery of calculaTor doubTful for The following reasons ThaT 2 and in The firsT insTance, GoTriha gave in which he gave informaTion ThaT The he railway sTaTion. However, no recovery said memorandum. ThereafTer, on 3-9- .d Komal‘Rarn has said To have given caIcuIaTor in which he said To have sTaTed me piasTic machine meanT for caIcuIaTion ~ailway sTaTion. The recovery memo EXP- day from The railway premises. Ir -ecovered aT abouT 1.05 p‘m. on The same menTioned ThaT from which placei recovered and wheTher The caiculo‘ Thing menTioned is ThaT The caic‘ sTaTion premises. When The calcul or was Thrown in The nighT of 1-8-1992 Then, how ThaT calculaTor remain in The railway premises for abouT one P.T.O. The recovery memo iT has nowhere been of railway sTaTion The calculaTor was 'or was in a concealed condiTion. The only .IlaTor was recovered from The railway XI~HC—78 fii WWW WWW {wwwm WW§WW %31%W311%3r monfh Two days, has nof been éxpl seizure memo ‘H'Iaf fhe calcula‘ror u The memorandum Ex.P-24 Komal R was Thrown on The railway si'a'tion. accused Gofr‘iha on 18-3-1992. Vinod Khandelwal (PW-1) in accused Komal Ram gave informaik under a sfone, buf neifher if has h fhe calcula‘ror was found in conce been menfioned in fhe memorandur 11), anofher wifness 1'0 the seizurn information fha‘i‘ 'ihe calculator is canirary f0 fhe evidence of Vina a can ge‘r recover fhe some. His evidence his examina‘i'ion-in-chief has siaied fha'r m Thai fhe caicuiafor' has been concealed ieen meniioned in ihe seizure memo fha‘r aled condifion under- a sfone, nor- if has / n of informal-ion Ex.P—24. Appa Rae (PW— : memo, has s‘l‘a‘l'ed‘i'ha't Komal Ram gave compound in a sfack of wood and hi has been kepi‘ in fhe railway si'a‘rion Khandelwal (PW—1) who has sfafed iha‘l The accused gave informa‘i'ion 'l'ha‘i' he calcula‘l‘or is concealed under a sione. This fac1' has noi been wri‘rfen in fhe memorandum 1'hai Komal Ram gave informafion fhai' fhe calculafor ha been concealed in a sfack of wood. In cross-examinafion he has s'l'afed 1' af The calcuia‘i‘or was recovered from a stack of wood. Bui' as has been enfioned earlier, fhere is no menfion fo fhis fac‘l' in‘fhe seizure memo. A.S. Gill (PW—14), fhe Inves igai'ing Officer, in para 11 of his evidence has simply sfafed iha‘l‘ Komal Ram ave informa‘l‘ion fhai he has +hrown The r calculai‘or on fhe sfai'ion and he c n gef recover i‘he same ahd ihe same is ained, as i1- has no+ been menfioned in The ‘as found in a conceaied condii'ion. Even in am has simpiy sfai'ed 1'ha1' fhe caiculafor- Simiiar was fhe memorandum given by P.T.O. mw,m,m WW ‘ .Qlifi-flél ”0x3” m m WW(W) XI~HC—78 HW,®?1°IW,W m$rfawf$ wmm mmwm WW£fwm $W3NA<ST EXP-24. In parsuance of Thai-cf was recovered. He has nof si'ai'ed fhe cahula'ror was recovered and u in a sfack of wood. Therefore, fhe evidence o‘ Khandelwal (PW-1) & Appa Rao (W is confradictory To each ofher r caicuhfor. Moreover, the calculah foo offer one monfh Two days an: railway sm'rion premises where pa} The recovery of calcukrror from Apar+ from +ha'r, accused Gofriha on 18-8-1992 regarding ihe caicul raiiway sfo‘iion. No expiona‘fion ho: as 1‘0 why search was nof mode or ihe insfance of accused Goiriha, recovery of caicuia‘i‘or a? +he ins'h established beyond reasonable do inspire confidence of The Court As far as The recovery of currency noTes and oTher iTems is concerned, The prosecuTion has noT been able To connecT The accused persons, as There was no idenTificoTion mark on The currency noTes and The prosecuTion has noT been able To emablish The facT ThaT The currency noTes P.T.O. The insTance of accused Komal Ram same ThaT from which place of railway sTaTion iheTher iT was concealed under a sTone or F Two recovery wiTnesses namely, Vinod (—11) i as well as The InvesTigaTing Officer ‘egarding memorandum and recovery of >r was recovered from an open place That iT is said To have been recovered from / ssengers move very frequenTiy, as such, The railway sTaTion becomes doubTful. had already given informaTion as back as :Tor ThaT iT was Thrown by Them on The : been given by The InvesTigaTing Officer Iwhy The calculaTor was noTrecovered aT aT ThaT Time. In The circumsTances, ince of accused Komal Ram has noT been JbT and as such, The recovery does noT WW {Hm Wm<W> XI—HC—78 HW,W1W,W mmW ‘ G3 .&:.7.4.( 9?mW WW (W) WWW WWW WW§WW mmaf’g‘n'm §7Wm which were recovered from fhé amused persons were of fhe complainant As far' as The ofher arficles, which were recovered af The ins‘rance of 'Hne accused persons, is concerned, They were noT sToien arTicles. Even The currency noTes, which were recovered from The accused persons, have noT been idenTified ThaT Those currency noTes were of The complainant Therefore, These recoveries are :Iso of no use and The accused persons cannoT be connecTed wiTh The crime. in question. As far as The evidence of H mial (PW-7) is concerned, he has sTaTed ThaT 24% years before The day o evidence he wenT To DhamTari in search of work and when was noT abie To eT work, he wenT To waTch cinema. When he was reTurning from cinema, acc sed Komal Eam meT him, he Took him To a Iiquor shop where accused GoTriha olso meT Them and boTh The accused said ThaT ieT us go To waTch The posTer , from There They wenT To Amar Taikies where GoTriha & Komal Ram said ThaT They wanT To commiT ThefT in The Talkies, on hearing This, he im ediaTeiy iefT The Taikies. 2—4 days ThereafTer, when he was going To is agricuiTural field, GoTriha meT him on The way and puT Rs.200/— or Rs.2 /- in his pockeT and said ThaT he should noT disclose To anybody. 2-4 day ThereafTer, he came To know ThaT The Thief has been caughT. Coming To now abouT The accused persons ThaT he accompanied Them To see The posT rs and They gave money To him, he wenT To The police sTaTion so ThaT he may naT be fasTened in The crime.- The above sTaTemenT of wiTness Hemlol does noT inspire full confidence of The CourT for The reason ThaT in his sTaTemedT Ex.D-2 made P.T.O. XI-HC—78 MW,WIE,1%IW ' .Cs?.-.J{3:.Z%X. .S WW {FL M WW<W> WWW WWW WW§WW wwmm éamm before ‘H'Ie Judicial Magisfr-afe; Fir‘s‘l' Class, under Secfion 164 of fhe Cr.P.C. and fhe sfafemenf Ex.D-1 made béfor'e fhe Poiice under Secfion 161 of fhe Cr.P.C. he has sfa‘red fhaf acCLsed Goir‘iha Told him 'fhat fhey have perfarmed fhe work of Amar 'ralki s, whereas in his evidence as PW—7 he has of PW—7, he has s+a+ed fha'r after 2-4 K days of “the incident accused Gofri a came i0 his viilage and puf Rs.200/- or 'Rs.250/- in his pockei', whereas in ross—examinafion in para 7 he has sfa‘l'ed fhm‘ Thereaffer, for 10-15 days could no? mee+ Gofriha and he did not disclose fa Mohif regarding 'ihe ncidenf, whereas in fhe examinaiion-in- chief he has sfmed fhaf affer- 2 days of *he incideni‘ money was pui' by Go'i-riha in his pocket Aparf from ha? as PW-7 he has sfai'ed fhai' Rs.200/- or Rs.250/- were puf in his pockef whereas in The sfafemen? under Secfion 164yof—‘ihe Cr.P.C. he has siafed 1‘ f on 15m of August Gofriha came io his village and offered Rs.100/-, wh h he denied, and fhereaffer, he gave Rs.250/-. As per The seizure m mo EXP-20, Rs.400/- were seized from Hemiai. Whereas only Rs.250/— e given fo him, fhen haw Rs.400/- were seized from Hemlai on 20m Augusf 1992? Moreover, as per +he evidence of “this wifness, no offence was com i'H'ed in his presence and as has been discussed eariier, ‘the prosecufion as noi' been able to conneci 1'he accused persons wifh fhe crime in quesfion by any ofher circumsfam’ial evidence. In the firsf insfance, the evidence of his wiiness is shaky and confradic'rary in na'i'ure. There is confradic‘i'ion in h s evidence, be‘i'ween examina‘i'ion-in-chief and crass-examinai‘ion as we“ be‘i'ween his eariier s'ra'i’emenfs made P.T.O. w r .( 12 EW,W,W WTW . o @Co .e.". ?.q7( > fa~% W Wm (W) WWffwm mmmm ésWm WWW WWW bafore The Police and fhe Magisfrafe Exs.D-1 & D-2, respecfively, as such, his evidence does no? inspire confic ence. Therefore, we ar-e of The consider-ed opinion fhaf fhe prosecufion has u'Herly failed 'I'o bring home Thee ~ime alieged against The accused persons. The proseicufion has no‘f been abl 1‘0 adduce any evidence ihr‘ough which i1' can safeiy be held fha‘r 1'he accuse were i'he oniy persons who were involved in commit-ling ‘rhe Thefi of fhe ci ma hall and murder of Pordesi Ram. In fhe circumstances, The prosecufi n has no? been able +0 bring home fhe crime aileged agains‘l' fhe accused ersons for commission of offence under / Secfions 460 6i 302 of the I.P.C. As for as ihe offence unde Secfion 120-3 of ihe I.P.C. is concerned, in order To bring home fhe offenc punishable under Seciion 120-3, Section 120-A of fhe I.P.C. defines crimina conspiracy, which envisages fha1‘ “When Two or more rsons agree fo do, or cause 'i'o be done, (1) an illegal ac‘r, or (2) an ac? which is n 1’ illegal by illegal means, such an agreemen‘i' is desi na‘i'ed a criminal conspiracy: Provided +h f no agreement excep‘i‘ an agreemem‘ 1'0 comm‘r an offence shall amount To a criminal conspiracy unless some acf besides fhe agreemen'i' is done y one or more parfies f0 such agreemem‘ in pursua ce fhereof." Therefore, fhe elemen'l's of criminai conspiracy have been sfa‘ied fo be: (a) an object to be accomplish d, (b) a plan or scheme embodying means P.T.O. XI—HC—78 HW,W,W Wm..€§?i§1?o€i£ %>§WIW .\ WW (W) WWW WWW WW§WW matwm > é;arF—?r1tran%$T To accomplish That object (c) a'n cgreemen‘r or unders‘randing between Two or more of fhe accused persans whereby fhey become definifely commi‘H'ed ‘ro cooperafe for.1‘he accomplish 'i‘ of The objec‘r by The means embodied in 'rhe agreement or- by any eff dun! means, and (d) in fhe Jurisdicfion where The sTaTuTe required an ove T acT. The essence of criminal conspiracy §s fhe unlawfui combination and or inariiy The offence is compIeTe when The combinaTion is framed. Law makin conspiracy a crime. is designed To curb immoderaTe power- To do mischief which is gained by a combinaTion of The means. The encouragemenT and s pporT which co—conspiraTors give To one anoTher rendering enTerprises p s ibie which, if iefT To individual effort would have been impossible furni The ground for visiTing conspiraTors and abeTTors wiTh condign punishmen The conspiracy is held To be conTinued and'renewed as To all iTs membe wherever and whenever any member of The conspiracy acTs in furTherance The common design. As has been heid by Th Apex CourT in The maTTer of E.i(. Chandrasenan v. STaTe of Keraia reporTed in (1995) 2 SCC 99, “Conspiracies are no haTched in The open, by Their naTurel They are sec eTiy planned, They can be proved even by circumsTan iai evidence, The lack of direcT evidence reiaTing To spiracy has no consequence." n As has been discussed ea Iier, The evidence of Hemlai (PW-7) is shaky, conTradicTory and does noT pire confidence for The reasons given in The earlier parT of This judgment There is no oTher circumsTanTiai evidence by which iT can be held ThaT The prosecuTion has been abie To‘esTablish ThaT P.T.O. m n s 0 t r f i s XI—HC-78 o mm ,W 5 WWW WWW mawFa'am-w WW WWK 35mm fhe accused persons in any way'en‘t Thereof fhe. offence of fhef‘r w murder of Pardesi- Ram was c mmi‘Hed. prosecumn has prove charge against accused/appelian'rs under Sec'rion 20-3 of fhe I.P.C. aiso. In the resulf, The appea! accused/appelianfs are acqu§f+ed c read wi‘rh Sec‘rion 120-3 of fhe imposed upon fhem under- fhe abe appeHanfs nameiy, Lekharam @ Rat bail bonds are discharged and Th Court Accused/appellan‘r Go‘rriha be sei’ a? iiberi'y fori'hwifh, if no? r Parfies are enfified for cerilified copy of i'his order. Sd/- ’ LC. BHADOO Judge " ,/‘ ‘ // r ‘ Soma ered info a conspiracy and in furfherance commii'fed in fhe cinema hail and fhe In ihe circumsfances, The 1‘0 The ufferiy fail d ucceeds and The same is allowed. The f charge under Seci'ions 302, 460 & 302 I.P.C. and The convic‘rion and seniences ve secfions are set aside. The accused/ ram Sinha & Komal Ram are on bail. Their :y need no? surrender before 1'he frial @ Ramadhar is said to be in cusfody. He