I.D. DUA, J.

(1) THIS appeal (Cr. A. No. 201 of 1966) alongwith three other appeals (including an appeal by the State against the acquittal of two accused persons) was disposed of by us on 28/09/1970. A review petition under Order XL of the Supreme court Rules (Review Petition No. 46 of 1970) was later presented on behalf of the appellant Baburao Bajirao Patil (accused No. 7 in the Trial court) for re-hearing this appeal so far as he is concerned on the ground that Mr. Frank Anthony, his learned counsel was under the impression at the time of bearing that he was not being called upon to reply to the arguments of the counsel for the State so far as accused No. 7 is concerned and that for this reason he did not address any arguments in reply. On 11/01/1971, after hearing both sides we considered it proper to permit Mr. Anthony to reply to the arguments of the State counsel. Mr. Anthony then addressed, us on the case against the appellant, BaburaoBajirao Patil on 29/01/1971 and we are now concerned only with his case. It may at the outset be observed that the learned counsel in reply emphasised what he had said in his opening address and nothing new was brought to our notice.

(2) THE prosecution story is stated in our judgment, dated 28/09/1970, in which we have dealt with the case against the present appellant and all the other co-accused whose cases were before us. It is, therefore, not necessary to reproduce the prosecution story again. This case is one of conspiracy and it nas to be borne in mind that by virtue of S. 10 of the Indian Evidence Act where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offenct or an actionable wrong anything said, done or written by anyone of such persons in reference to their common intention after the time when such intention was entertained by anyone of them would be relevant as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, both for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy and for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it.

(3) THE appellant was, according to the prosecution, the real brain behind the conspiracy. He had beeri approached by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 6 for help and he thought of helping them by winning over the investigating officers. There is undoubtedly no direct evidence as indeed it is seldomif ever-that direct evidence of conspiracies can be forthcoming. Conspiracy of the present type from its very nature must be conceived and hatched in complete secrecy, for otherwise the whole purpose would fail. The High court noticed that the Trial court had catalogued a large number of circumstances against the appellant. In the opinion of the High court the most important of them were, the appellants movements on the morning of 7/12/1961, his acts in arranging for taxi from Sholapur, the Telangwadi meeting, his subsequent conduct in going back in the taxi with P. S. I. Patil to that officers house at Mohol and having a conference with him there. Evidence on these points had been discussed by the High court earlier when dealing with the prosecution case generally. These circumstances, according to the High court, could only be understood and explained on the basis of the conspiracy as alleged .by the prosecution. The High court observed :

"THE conduct of Baburao, as stated above, coupled with the movements of the taxi arranged by him during the night between the 7th and 8/12/1961 and the happenings of the two days, which we have already discussed provide, in our opinion, a substantially strong chain of circumstances which leaves no reasonable doubt (about?) the guilt of Baburao as a person who was a member of the conspiracy and had participated in the same."

Earlier the High court had, while discussing the general case of conspiracy expressed its conclusions in these words :

"IN our opinion, however, the circumstances we have so far discussed, which relate to the