JUDGMENT

FAZAL ALI, J.:— This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Allahabad High Court dated 29th September, 1970 by which the High Court acquitted the respondents of the charges framed against them by the Sessions Judge, Dehra Dun.

2. The Sessions Judge, Dehra Dun by his order dated 16th July, 1969 convicted the respondents Boot Singh, Asa Singh, Trilok Singh and Raghubir Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 I. P. C. and also under Sec. 120-B I. P. C. Boota Singh, Trilok Singh and Asa Singh were sentenced to death under Sec. 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120-B I. P. C. while Reghubir Singh was sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120-B I. P. C. The four respondents mentioned above were also convicted under Section 364 read with Section 34 and Section 120-B I. P. C. and Section 394 read with Section 34 and Section 120-B I.P.C. and each of them were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years under each count. Boota Singh was further convicted of the offence under Section 419, I. P. C. and Section 471 read with Section 465 I. P. C. and Section 471 read with Section 466 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years, one year and four years respectively. As three of the respondents, viz., Boota Singh, Trilok Singh and Asa Singh were sentenced to death, the Sessions Judge made a reference to the High Court of Allahabad for confirmation of the sentence of death. The respondents who have been convicted by the Sessions Judge also filed appeals against their convictions and sentences. The appeal was heard by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court which reversed the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and acquitted all the respondents of the charges framed against them.

3. Thereafter, the State of U. P. preferred an appeal to this Court and after special leave was granted by this Court, the appeal has been placed before us for hearing. At the time when the special leave was granted, the court issued non-bailable warrants against the four respondents in pursuance of which Boota Singh, Trilok Singh and Raghubir Singh surrendered but Asa Singh remained absconding. During the pendency of the appeal the respondent Trilok Singh died and it is, therefore, manifest that the appeal so far as this respondent is concerned has abated. Before we took up the appeal for hearing we segregated the appeal of Asa Singh as he was absconding and directed that the appeal against other respondents will be heard but the appeal of Asa Singh will be kept pending.

4. Briefly the prosecution case may be summarised as follows: Respondent Asa Singh and his brother Bal Singh had entered into an agreement with Ram Lal P. W. 16 and his father Kaka Ram for purchasing 68 bighas of land at the rate of Rs. 225 per bigha and an earnest money of Rs. 3,200 had been paid by Asa Singh and Bal Singh at the time of the agreement and the balance of the amount was agreed to be paid on the 25th December, 1963. The respondent Trilok Singh had accompanied Asa Singh and the latter went to Ram Lal for negotiating the aforesaid purchase. The prosecution alleged that Asa Singh and Boota Singh respondents were first cousins and were residents of Chhidarwala. Boota Singh was also related to Trilok Singh inasmuch as Trilok Singhs sister is wedded to the cousin of Boota Singh. After the agreement, Asa Singh appears to have found some difficulties in arranging for the money to be paid to the vendee P. W. 16 Ram Lal and under the terms of the agreement if the money was not paid by the due date the entire amount of the earnest money of Rupees 3,200 was liable to be forfeited. In such a situation the four respondents entered into a conspiracy to obtain money by means fair or foul. They accordingly hit upon a plan to obtain a taxi on hire and after taking possession of it to do away with the driver and sell the taxi at some other place and utilise the consideration o