The main legal point established is that a criminal conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, and the lack of direct evidence relating to conspiracy has no consequence.

1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18-01-2007 passed by Shri N.D.Tigala, IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur (Surguja) in Sessions Trial No.409/2005 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Amit and others) framing charges against the applicant for offences under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Brief facts are that on 25-06-2005 at about 3.20 P.M., one Jagmohan Singh, who was a star witness for the prosecution in the Lalbabu murder case, was shot in the Ambikapur Court premises by one Guddu Singh alias Vinod Singh. The prosecution case is that the applicant Atul Singh, the main accused in the Lalbabu murder trial hatched a criminal conspiracy with co- accused Shubhkaran Dwivedi who was also detained with him in District Jail, Ambikapur to eliminate the main witness Jagmohan Singh, in pursuance of which, Shubhkaran Dwivedi arranged for a professional shooter Vinod Singh alias Guddu Singh. A room was booked in Maya Lodge, Ambikapur for Guddu Singh alias Vinod Singh, the expenses of which were to be borne by the applicant Atul Singh. Atul Singh wrote a letter to the Manager of Maya Lodge stating that he would be making the payment for the stay of Guddu Singh in the lodge.

3. In statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the witnesses divulged as under :- (i) Balsairam, the Manager of Maya Lodge divulged that the applicant had communicated through his Manager that he would be responsible for making payment for the stay of Guddu Singh on 29-04-2005 in Maya Lodge, Ambikapur. (ii) Rahul Sharma divulged that Vinod Singh had told him that Atul Singh, who was detained in jail, was bearing all his expenses. (iii) Sanjeet Tripathi divulged that at the behest of Shubhkaran Dwivedi and Guddu Singh, he had purchased a motor cycle which was driven by Guddu Singh, who used to meet Shubhkaran Dwivedi and Atul Singh at the jail. (iv) The letter written by Atul Singh to the Manager of Maya Lodge was also seized from Balsairam on 25-06-2005. (v) Mintu Singh divulged that Shubhkaran Dwivedi and Atul Singh, while being detained in Ambikapur Jail, were frequently seen talking to each other. (vi) Krishna Mohan Singh divulged that at the behest of Atul Singh dozens of people were visiting the Court premises from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar and his brother Jagmohan Singh had told him that Atul Singh was intimidating the witnesses through the accused persons, who had been granted bail. (vii) The prosecution also filed a document purporting to be an application made by Jagmohan Singh to the Superintendent of Police, Ambikapur (Surguja) on 24-06-2005 about apprehension of his elimination by Shubhkaran Dwivedi and Atul Singh through their associates from Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh.

4. On the basis of above material, Shri N.D.Tigala, the then learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur found a prima facie case under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against Atul Singh and framed charges under the abovementioned sections.

5. It is not disputed that the trial has commenced and as many as 12-13 witnesses for the prosecution have also been examined. It is also not disputed by Shri Akhil Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer that the application dated 24-06-2005 by Jagmohan Singh, which was filed along with the charge-sheet, did not form part of the case diary. In other words, he specifically admitted that the case diary did not reveal that such an application was made by Jagmohan Singh to the Superintendent of Police, Ambikapur (Surguja) on 24-06-2005. Shri P.Diwakar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant did not dispute that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar Through CBI (AHD) Patna, 2006(4) Crimes 419 (SC) it was not imperative for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to record the