IMPORTANT POINT
Murder in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence. High Court followed correct principles of Criminal Trial based on circumstantial evidence in the facts and circumstances of this case.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-These four appeals relate to a Division Bench judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court dated 31.7.2000. While Criminal Appeal Nos. 921/2000, 791/2001, 792/2001 have been filed by the accused, Criminal Appeal No. 837/2001 has been filed by the State.

2. Ravinder Kumar (accused No.1), Ashok Kumar (accused No. 2) and Rajesh Kumar (accused No. 6) were convicted by the Trial Court while Bodhraj (accused No.3), Bhupinder (accused No. 4), Subash Kumar (accused No. 5) and Rakesh Kumar (accused No. 7) were acquitted by the Trial Court, but the High Court set aside their acquittal and convicted them. Rohit Kumar (accused No. 8) and Kewal Krishan (accused No. 9) were acquitted by the Trial Court and their acquittal has been upheld by the High Court. Another accused i.e. Kishore Kumar was acquitted by the Trial Court. He having died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the appeal against him was held to have abated. Accused Rajesh Kumar has not preferred any appeal against the conviction as upheld by the High Court.

3. Accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 having been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ) were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each. It was stipulated that for default in paying the fine, each had to suffer another year of imprisonment. Similar was the case with accused No. 6. So far as the accused Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 are concerned, the High Court convicted and sentenced them at par with the other three accused.

4. Factual scenario as highlighted by the prosecution is as follows:

Swaran Singh @ Pappi (hereinafter referred to as the deceased ) was running a finance company. Accused No. 2 (Ashok Kumar) and accused No.1 (Ravinder Kumar) had taken huge amounts as loan from the deceased. They suggested to the deceased to enter into a financial arrangement. On the fateful day i.e. 3rd August, 1994, deceased went to his business premises. After about 10 minutes of his arrival accused - Ravinder Kumar also reached his office. As the deceased had brought some money from his house which was to be deposited in a bank, Darshan Singh (PW 15) an employee was asked to make the deposit. Since no vehicle was available, Ravinder Kumar gave the key of his car to Darshan Singh. The registration number of the car is CH01 5408. Darshan Singh left the office around 11.30 a.m. and returned around 1.30 p.m. On his return, Darshan found the deceased in the company of accused Ravinder Kumar and Ashok Kumar. He returned the key of the car to Ravinder Kumar. After about 10/15 minutes, deceased and accused-Ashok Kumar left the office. At the time of his departure, deceased told Darshan to take the food which was to come from his house, as they were going out to have food. Accused-Ashok Kumar and the deceased went to Hotel Asia for taking their food. Later on, accused - Ravinder Kumar joined them. All the three after taking food went to the business premises of Gian Singh (PW-1) who was a property dealer and broker. He was informed that they were interested in purchasing some land for setting up a flour mill. Ravinder and Ashok Kumar persuaded the deceased to accompany them for the selection of the site. Along with Gian Singh (PW-1), another property dealer was also picked up. This was done as PW-1 wanted to go to the site in question along with Pratap Singh (PW-2) who was his business partner. All of them went to village Dhiansar where the land was situated. They went by car No.JK-02B 566. As accused-Ravinder Kumar appeared to be in extreme haste, he told that site has been approved and PWs. 1 and 2 were told that they would settle the matter at their business premises. When they were returning, the deceased was attacked by some persons (later on identified as accused 3 to 10). The accused 1 and 2 remained silent spectators and even did not pay any heed to the pitiful plea of the deceased to bring the car