GULAM SARBARversusSTATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

                     [2013] 12 S.C.R. 1


                     GULAM SARBAR                                  A
                              v.
         STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)
         (Criminal Appeal No. 1316 of 2012 etc.)

                     OCTOBER 7, 2013
                                                                   B
      [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.]

    Penal Code, 1860:

     s.302 rlw s.120-8 - Murder committed with criminal C
conspiracy - conviction and sentence of life imprisonment -
Upheld by High Court - Held: The manner in which the crime
was committed indicates that it was a pre-planned murder --
There was no material contradiction, embellishment or
improvement in the deposition of eye-witness -- High Court
                                                               0
reappreciated the evidence and upheld the findings of fact ·
recorded by trial court obseNing that ocular evidence was in
conformity with medical evidence and it was a clear case of
conspiracy - In the facts and circumstances of the case,
findings recorded by courts below do not warrant interference.
                                                               E
      s. 120-B - Criminal r;onspiracy - Ingredients of -
Explained.

    Evidence Act, 1872:

     s. 134 - Number of witnesses - Held: In the matter of         F
appreciation of evidence, it is not the number of witnesses
but quality of their evidence which is important, as there is
no requirement under law of evidence that particular number
of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact -
Conviction can be based on the testimony of a sole eye-            G
witness -- The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth,
is cogent, credible and trustworthy.


                               1                                   H
    2       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A       Evidence:

          Arrest -- Recovery of vehicles used in crime - Witness
    of arrest memo and panch witness of recovery of vehicles not
    examined - Held: In the absence of putting such an issue to
    Investigating Officer, appellants cannot seek any benefit of
8
    such omission or error by prosecution in conducting of trial -
    - If prosecution had not examined Panchnama witnes.ses and
    witnesses to the arrest memos, appellants could have
    examined them in their defence.

C      The appellants and other accused persons were
  prosecuted for committing murder with criminal
  conspiracy. The prosecution case was that at about 8.00
  P.M. on 6.9.1996, when the informant/complainant (PW-
  7) was going with the deceased on a motorcycle, six
D persons including the appellants stopped them and
  appellant 'D' and accused •y• pointing their pistols
  towards deceased asked him as to why he was
  disturbing the working of the institute of accused 'BK'.
  During altercation accused 'A' stabbed the deceased and
E told his companions to complete the task for which they
  had come. Accused 'Y' shot at the deceased at point
  blank range causing his death. The trial court convicted
  both the appellants alongwith other accused persons u/
  s 302 read with s.120-B IPC and sentenced them to
F imprisonment for life. The High Court dismissed their
  appeals.

      In the instant appeals, it was contended for the
  appellants that there was nothing on record to prove
  existence of conspiracy to kill the deceased and none of
G the appellants were involved in the affairs of the institute
  for which there was dispute between the deceased and
  accused 'BK'; and that neither the witnesses of memo of
  arrest of the appellants nor the punch witnesses of
  recovery of the motorcycle and scooter were examined.
H
    GULAM SARBAR v. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW                    3
               JHARKHAND)
    Dismissing the appeals, the Court                           A

     HELD: 1.1 The essential ingredients of criminal
conspiracy are (i) an agreement between two or more
persons; (ii) agreement must relate to doing or causing to
be done either (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act which is not
                                                                8
illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. What is,
therefore, necessary is to show meeting of minds of two
or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal
act or an act by illegal means. Mere knowledge or
discussion or generation of a crime in the mind of the
accused, is not sufficient to constitute an offence. The gist   C
of the offence of conspiracy then lies, not in doing the act,
ot effecting the purpose for which the conspiracy is
formed, nor in attempting to do them between the parties.
Agreement is essential. The offence takes place with the
meeting of minds even if nothing further is done. It is an      D
offence independent of other offences and punishable
separately. Thus, the prosecution is required to establish
the offence by applying the same legal principles which
 are otherwise applicable for the purpose of proving
 criminal misconduct on the part of an accused. Criminal        E
 conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy thus direct
 evidence is difficult to obtain or access. The offence can
 be proved by adducing circumstantial evidence or by
 necessary implication. Meeting of minds to form a criminal
 conspiracy has to be proved by adducing substantive            F
 evidence in cases where circumstantial evidence is
 incomplete or vague. [para 5] [12-F-H; 13-A-C]

    Kehar Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Admn.), 1988 (2)
Suppl. SCR 24 = AIR 1988 SC 1883; State (NCT of Delhi)          G
v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR79        =
AIR 2005 SC 3820; Mir Nagvi Askari v. CBI, 2009 (13) SCR
124 =AIR 2010 SC 528; Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab,
                     =
2009 (7) SCR 855 (2009) 6 SCC 564; State of M.P. v.
                                            =
Sheet/a Sahai & Ors. 2009(12) SCR 1048 (2009) 8 SCC
                                                                H
    4       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A 617; R. Venkatkrishnan v. CBI, 2009 (12) SCR 762 = AIR
  2010 SC 1812; and S. Aru/ Raja v. State of T.N., 2010 (9)
  SCR 356 = (2010) 8 SCC 233; Mohmed Amin@ Amin
  Choteli Rahim Miyan Shaikh & Anr. v. 2008 (16) SCR 155 =
  CBI (2008) 15 SCC 49; Vikram Singh & Ors. v. State of
B Punjab, 2010 (2) SCR 22 =AIR 2010 SC 1007 - referred to.

         1.2 The evidence on record and, particularly, the
    deposition of PW.7 clearly depicts the conspiracy from
    the manner in which the appellants and other accused
    were present at the place of occurrence. Admittedly, there
C was rivalry and ill-will between accused 'BK' and the
    deceased as they had separated their business of
  · running of educational institution and the latter did not
    like the illicit relationship between accused and a clerk
    in the institute, and also revealed this fact to 'BK's wife,
D who began living separately. Therefore, relations between
    accused 'BK' and the deceased had been strained. Both
    the appellants and other accused were acquainted with
  . accused 'BK' as well as. the deceased and were also
    known to PW.7. [para 7-8] [13-H; 14-A-E]
E
         1.3 The names of the appellants and other accused
    had been mentioned in the FIR. The Scooter used in the
    crime was seized in the presence of independent
    witnesses. The seizure memo was prepared on which
F both the said panch witnesses put their signatures. The
    same was marked as Exhibit 6-1 and was proved by PW.8,
    Investigating Officer. The arrest of appellants 'GS' and 'D'
    was proved by PW-8. As regards the plea that neither the
    witness of arrest memo of either of the appellants nor the
G panch witness of the recovery of scooter and motor cycle
    used in the crime has been examined by the prosecution,
    no such question was put to Investigating Officer [PW-8]
    and, therefore, the appellants cannot seek any benefit of
    such omission or error by the prosecution in conducting
H of trial. [para 9, 11-12] [14-G-H; 15-A; 16-A-B, C-D]
        GULAM SARBAR v. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW                 5
                   JHARKHAND)

         Laxmibai (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Anr. v. Bhagwantbuva       A
    (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors., 2013 (1) SCR 632 =AIR 2013 SC
    1204; Ravinder Kumar Sharma v. State of Assam & Ors.,
    1999 (2) Suppl. SCR 339 =AIR 1999 SC 3571; Ghasita Sahu
    v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2008 (2 ) SCR 95 = AIR 2008
    SC 1425; Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, JT 2013 (8)      B
    SC 181; and Gian Chand & Ors. v. State of Haryana, JT 2013
    (10) SC 515 - referred to.

         1.4 In the matter of appreciation of evidence of
    witnesses, it is not the number of witnesses but quality
    of their evidence which is important, as there is no C
    requirement under the law of evidence that any particular
    number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove
    a fact. It is a time- honoured principle that evidence must
    be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the
    evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and D
    trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid
    emphasis on value provided by each witness, rather than
    the multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is quality and
    not quantity, which determines the adequacy of evidence
    as has been provided by s.134 of the Evidence Act. Thus, E
    conviction can even be based on the testimony of a sole
    eye witness, if the same inspires .confidence. If the
    prosecution had not examined the Panchnama witnesses
    and witnesses to the arrest memos of the appellants, the
    appellants could have examined them in their defence. F
    [para 14-15] [17-D-G; 18-B]

        Vadivelu Thevar & Anr. v. State of Madras; 1957 SCR
    981 =AIR 1957 SC 614; Kunju @ Balachandran v. State of
    Tamil Nadu, 2008 (1) SCR 781 =AIR 2008 SC 1381; Bipin G
    Kumar Monda/ v. State of West Bengal 2010 (8) SCR 1036
    =AIR 2010 SC 3638; Mahesh & Anr. v. State of Madhya
    Pradesh 2011 (11) SCR 377 = (2011) 9 SCC 626; Prithipa/
    Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. 2012 (14) SCR 862 =
    (2012) 1 SCC 10; and Kishan Chand v. State of Haryana JT
                                                               H
"
    6       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A 2013(1) SC 222 - referred to.

        1.5 The Trial Court held that a conspiracy was
    hatched by accused 'BK' as the deceased had created
    problems in his family life as well as in his business. The
    manner in which the crime was committed indicates that
8
    it was a pre-planned murder. There was no material
    contradiction, embellishment or improvement in the
    deposition of PW.7. [para 17] [18-G-H; 19-A]

       1.6 The prosecution has successfully established the
C involvement of the appellants in the crime and the
  manner in which the crime has been committed
  establishes the. conspiracy. The appellants in their
  statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. did not furnish any satisfactory
  explanation of the circumstances under which they were
o present at the place of occurrence. More so, the manner
  in which they fled away after the commission of the crime
  clearly indicates their involvement in the offence to
  conduct a conspiracy. PW.7 has no enmity with either of
  the appellants and there was no reason for him to involve
E them falsely in such a heinous crime. The trial court after
  appreciating the evidence recorded the findings of fact
  regarding the presence of the appellants as well as PW.7
  at the place of occurrence. PW-7 had seen accused 'BK'
  gathering all other accused at the place of occurrence.
F [para 16-17] [18-C-F]

       1.7 The High Court reappreciated the evidence and
  upheld the findings of facts recorded by the trial court
  observing that the ocular evidence was in consonance
  and in conformity with the medical evidence and it was
G a clear case of conspiracy. There is no reason for the
  prosecution witnesses to have deposed falsely to
  implicate the appellants. In view of th•~ facts and
  circumstances of the case, the findings rec1>rded by the
  courts below do not warrant interference. [para 18-20]
H [19-C, E-F]
    GULAM SARBAR v. STATE OF 61HAR (NOW                7
               JHARKHAND)
                   Case Law Reference:                     A
   1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 24    referred to     para 5
    2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 79   referred to     para 5
   2009 (13) SCR 124         referred to     para 5
                                                           B
   2009 (7) SCR 855          referred to     para 5
    2009 (12) SCR 1048       referred to     para 5
   2009 (12) SCR 762         referred to     para 5
    2010 (9) SCR 356         referred to     para 5
                                                           c
    2008 (16) SCR 155        referred to     para 6
   2010 (2) SCR 22           referred to     Para 6
    2013 (1) SCR 632         referred to     Para 13       D

    1999 (2) Suppl. SCR 339 referred to      Para 13
    2008 (2) SCR 95          referred to     Para 13
    JT 2013 (8) SC 181       referred to     Para 13       E
   , 2013 (10) SC 515        referred to     Para 13
    1957 SCR 981             referred to     Para 14
    2008 (1) SCR 781         referred to     Para 14
                                                           F
    2010 (8) SCR 1036        referred to     Para 14
    2011 (11) SCR 377        referred to     Para 14
   2012 (14) SCR 862         referred to     Para 14
                                                           G
   JT 2013(1) SC 222         referred to     Para 14

    CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1316 of 2012.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2012 of the    H
    8       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             (2013] 12 S.C.R.


A High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal (D/B)
  No. 273 of 1998 (R).
                                 WITH
    Crl. A. No. 1967 of 2012.

B       Amrendra Sharan, Awanish Sinha, Ashok Srivastava,
    Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Pawan Kumar Ray for the
    Appellant.

          Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, Krishnanand Pandeya, Amrendra
c   Kr., for the Respondent.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. These appeals have been
  preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated
D 22.3.2012 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
  in Criminal Appeals (DB) Nos. 273 of 1998 (R) and 262 of
  1998 (R) affirming the judgment and order of conviction and
  sentence dated 26.8.1998 and 31.8.1998 respectively passed
  by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions
E Trial No. 112 of 1997, by which and whereunder, the appellants
  in both these appeals stood convicted. alongwith others,
  namely, Binod Kumar, Asgar Mian @ Asgar Ansari, Paiki
  Ramm @ Poki Ramm and Mantu Das under Sections 302 read
  with 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to
F as the · IPC') and sentenced to undergo RI for life.

         2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals
    are that:

       A. As per the case of the prosecution, Dr. Gopal Prasad
G Sinha (PW. 7), informant/complainant was going alongwith Sant
  Kumar Sinha (deceased), to Rajganj, Dhanbad on his
  motorcycle at about 8.00 P.M. on 6.9.1996. When they reached
  near Sant Nirankari Chowk, they saw a scooter and a
  motorcycle parked at the side of the road and six persons
H including the appellants were standing in the close proximity .
     GULAM SARBAR v. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW                       9
       JHARKHAND) [DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.]

thereof, and they signalled the complainant to stop. The            A
complainant stopped his motorcycle and enquired as to why
they were waiting. But within no time, Yakub Ansari and Dhiren
Mahto - appellant took out their pistols from their waist and
pointed towards them and asked why Sant Kumar Sinha
(deceased) was disturbing the working of the institute run by       B
Binod Kumar. They threatened Sant Kumar Sinha (deceased)
to remain away from the institute. Sant Kumar Sinha
(deceased) asked the accused persons how they were related
to running the affairs of the institute, which led to an exchange
of hot words between the deceased and the accused persons.          c
Accused Asgar started inflicting blows by means of a knife and
told his compani,ons to complete the task for which they ~ad
come. Immediately, Yakub opened fire at point blank range
from his revolver on the left side of the neck of Sant Kumar
Sinha (deceased) due to which the deceased collapsed and            D
died immediately. The informant/complainant being scared ran
away from the place of occurrence, leaving his motorcycle at
the spot. He met a police party to whom he narrated the
incident. On the basis of the Fardbeyan of the informant, a case
under Sections 302/120-B/379 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms         E
Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Arms Act') against the
accused, including both the appellants, was registered vide FIR
No. 175 of 1996. Thus, the investigation ensued accordingly.

     B. After the conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet
was filed against all the accused, showing Yakub @ Ayub as          F
an absconder. Accordingly, the trial vide S.T. No. 112of1997
commenced. The co-accused Yakub @ Ayub was
apprehended later and was tried separately vide S.T. No. 405
of 1998.
                                                                    G
     C. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined
eight witnesses including Mithilesh Kumar Sinha (PW.1) - real
brother of the deceased, Arvind Kumar (PW.2) - cousin of
deceased, Dr. Dhiraj (PW.6), who conducted the post-mortem
examination, Dr. Gopal Prasad Sinha (PW.7), informant/              H
    10       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A   complainant and brother of deceased and Jagdish Prasad
    (PW.8), the Investigating Officer.

         D. The defence also examined three witnessE~s. Gurpreet
    Singh Mittal (DW.1 ), was examined only to prove that there was
    no light in Sant Nirankari Bhawan at the relevant point of time,
8
    and further to show that Nirankari Chowk was at a distance of
    about 200-250 feet away from Nirankari Bhawan. Vijay Kumar
    Singh (DW.2) and Suresh Dass (DW.3) were merely formal
    witnesses.

C        E. As per the case of the prosecution, Gulam Sarbar,
    appellant ran away on Yakub's motorcycle after the incident. He
    was chased by the police and arrested at a short distance from
    the place of occurrence after he jumped a police barricade.

0      F. Similarly, Dhiren Mahto left the place of occurrence on
  LML Vespa Scooter alongwith Asgar Mian. So far as Dhiren
  Mahto (appellant) is concerned, he was arrested after a few
  days on secret information of his presence at Naya Bazar. At
  the time of raid, the said appellant tried to run away on the
E scooter after seeing the police but was chased and captured
  near Bartad.

       G. In his statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal
  Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ·cr.P.C.'), Gulam
  Sarbar simply denied all allegations against him and even
F denied his presence at the place of occurrence. Dhirendra
  Chandra Mahto denied his involvement by any means in the
  murder of Sant Kumar Sinha (deceased) stating that he had
  nothing to do with the main accused Binod Kumar. He was a
  small contractor, however, he did not deny his presence at the
G place of occurrence nor that he had run away on the scooter
  taking away Asgar Ansari as pillion rider.

       H. After considering the material on record, the trial court
  vide its judgment and order dateq 31.8.1998 convicted both the
H appellants under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC alongwith other
     GULAM SARBAR v. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW                    11
       JHARKHAND) [DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.]
accused and sentenced as referred to hereinabove but             A
acquitted Dhirendra Chandra Mahto of the charge under
Section 27 of the Arms Act.

    I. Aggrieved, they preferred appeals alongwith others
before the High Court which stood dismissed by the impugned      B
judgment and order dated 22.3.2012.

     Hence, these appeals.

       3. Shri Amarendra Sharan, learned senior counsel
 appearing on behalf of Gulam Sarbar and Shri Ashok K.           c
 Srivastava, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
 Dhiren Mahto, have submitted that t1:1ere is no material on record
 to prove the existence of a conspiracy to kill Sant Kumar Sinha
 (deceased); none of these appellants was involved in the affairs
 of the institute for which there was some dispute between Sant D
 Kumar Sinha (deceased) and Binod Kumar (accused). In fact,
 both of them had been running a institute jointly and one Shipra
 Sen Choudhery was working as a clerk in the institute with whom
 Binod Kumar (accused) developed illicit relationship which was
not liked by Sant Kumar Sinha (deceased), who tried to E
persuade Binod Kumar (accused) not to continue that
 relationship but he was not willing to give up the same. Sant
Kumar Sinha (deceased) also informed the wife of Binod
Kumar (accused) about this relationship and there was a quarrel
between Shipra Sen Choudhery and Binod Kumar's wife over
the same. Earlier, Binod Kumar had opened a new institute and F
made Shipra Sen Choudhery its Director. However, none of
theso/appellants were involved in the entire episode. Even the
arrest of Gulam Sarbar from a place near to the place of
incident is doubtful. Had it been so, the FIR wh.ich was
registered after the arrest of Gu lam Sarbar, would contain such G
facts. Even the general diary did not mention what the distance
was between the police station and the place from where Gulam
Sarbar, appellant, was arrested. The investigation had not been
conducted properly and fairly. The witnesses, particularly,
Mithilesh Kumar Sinha (PW.1) and Arvind Kumar (PW.2) not H
    12       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A being eye-witnesses could not be relied upon. No independent
  witness was examined by the prosecution to prove the arrest
  of any of the appellants nor to prove alleged recoveries of the
  motor cycle and the scooter in the case. The prosecution case
  is based on speculation and conjecture thus, thei appeals
B deserve to be allowed and the judgment and order of the courts
  below are liable to be set aside.

       4. Per contra, Shri Ratan Kumar Chaudhuri and Shri
  Krishnanand Pandeya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
  the State, opposed both these appeals contending that there
C are concurrent findings of facts and that both accused persons
  were well acquainted with Binod Kumar, the main accused, and
  had been seen by the witnesses and particularly by Dr. Gopal
   Prasad Sinha (PW.7) in the institute owned by Binod Kumar,
  accused, prior to the incident. Their presence on the spot and
D the manner in which they had parked their vehicles and stopped
   the motorcycle on which the complainant and deceased were
   travelling is enough to prove the conspiracy. There is no
   improvement or embellishment in the case of the prosecution
   against any individual accused. The evidence has rightly been
E appreciated by the courts below and ocular evidence is
   corroborated by the medical evidence. Thus, the appeals lack
   merit and are liable to be dismissed.

         5. The essential ingredients of Criminal Conspiracy are (i)
 F an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) agreement
   must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal
   act; or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal
   means. What is, therefore, necessary is to show meeting of
   minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done
 G an illegal act or an act by illegal means. Mere knowledge or
   discussion or generation of a crime in the mind of the accused,
   is not sufficient to constitute an offence.
        The offence takes place with the meeting of minds even if
   nothing further is done. It is an offence independent of other
 H offences and punishable separately. Thus, the prosecution is
     GULAM SARBAR v. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW                        13
       JHARKHAND) [DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.)

required to establish ttie offence by applying the same legal         A
principles which are otherwise applicable for the purpose of
proving criminal misconduct on the part of an accused. Criminal
conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy thus direct evidence
is difficult to obtain or access. The offence can be proved by
adducing circumstantial evidence or by necessary implication.         B
Meeting of minds to form a criminal conspiracy has to be
proved by adducing substantive evidence in cases where
circumstantial evidence is incomplete or vague. The gist of the
offence of conspiracy then lies, not in doing the act, or effecting
the purpose for which the conspiracy is formed, nor in                c
attempting to do them between the parties. Agreement is
essential. (Vide: Kehar Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Admn.),
AIR 1988 SC 1883; State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu
@ Afsan Guru, AIR 2005 SC 3820; Mir Nagvi Askari v. CBI,
AIR 2010 SC 528; Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 6
                                                                      0
SCC 564; State of M.P. v. Sheet/a Sahai & Ors., (2009) 8 SCC
617; R. Venkatkrishnan v. CBI, AIR 2010 SC 1812; and S.Arul
Raja v. State of T.N., (2010) 8 SCC 233).

     6. In Mohmed Amin @ Amin Choteli Rahim Miyan
Shaikh & Anr. v. CBI, (2008) 15 SCC 49, it was held that in           E
order to come under this provision it is not necessary for the
accused to know the detailed stages of conspiracy; mere
knowledge of main object/ purpose of the conspiracy would
suffice for this Section.
                                                                      F
     Similarly, in Vikram Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR
2010 SC 1007, this Court dealt with a case where the accused
had purchased fortwin injection and chloroform. Thus, it was
held that since the purchase of these materials was an initial
step towards commission of offence, the presence of co-
accused Sonia, though not referred to by the witnesses at the         G
time of actual kidnapping would not imply that she was not privy
to conspiracy and conviction of the accused under Section 120-
B IPC was upheld.

     7. The evidence on record and particularly the deposition        H
    14      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013) 12 S.C.R.


A of Dr. Gopal Prasad Sinha (PW. 7) clearly depicts the
  conspiracy from the manner in which the appellants and other
  accused were present on the crossing and stopped the
  complainant and the deceased. Admittedly, there was rivalry
  and ill-will between Binod Kumar (accused) and Sant Kumar
B Sinha (deceased) as they had separated their business of
  running of educational institution and Sant Kumar Sinha did not
  like the illicit relationship between Binod Kumar (accused) and
  Shipra Sen Choudhery, Clerk. Sant Kumar Sinha (deceased)
  tried to persuade Binod Kumar (accused) to desist from the
c said illicit relationship and Sant Kumar Sinha (deceased) also
  revealed this fact to the wife of Binod Kumar (accused) and
  there was. not only a verbal fight between the wife of Binod
  Kumar and Shipra Sen Choudhery but also a scuffle between
  them on this issue and, subsequently, the wife of Binod Kumar
D began living separately. Therefore, relations between Binod
   Kumar (accused) and Sant Kumar Sinha (deceased) had
  definitely been strained.

      8. Both these appellants and other accused were
  acquainted with Binod Kumar (accused) as well as Sant Kumar
E Sinha (deceased) and were also known to Dr. Gopal Prasad
  Sinha (PW.7). They had been seen earlier in the institute with
  Binod Kumar (accused).

       9. The evidence of Dr. Gopal Prasad Sinha (PW.7) that
F Gulam Sarbar had run away with the accused Yakub @ Ayub
  on black coloured Kawasaki motorcycle and had been arrested
  within a close vicinity of the place of incident, though Yakub
  successfully escaped, inspires confidence. The names of the
  appellants and other accused had been mentioned in the FIR.
G In such a fact-situation, not mentioning that Gulam Sarbar had
  been arrested in the FIR is of no significance. The LML Vespa
  Scooter BR 17-B-4455 used in the crime was seized in the
  presence of independent witnesses, namely, Sunil Manda! and
  Santosh Vikral. The seizure memo was prepared on which both ,
H the said panch witnesses put their signatures. The same was
     GULAM SARBAR v. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW                         15
       JHARKHAND) [DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.]
  marked as Exhibit 6-1 and was proved by Jagdish Prasad               A
  (PW.8), Investigating Officer. In respect of the arrest of Gulam
  Sarbar, Jagdish Prasad (PW.8) has clearly deposed that he
  was inspecting small vehicles in front of the police station
  alongwith Constable Badre Alam at about 20.05 hrs., when he
. saw two persons on one black coloured Kawasaki motorcycle            B
  crossing the barrier at a very high speed. They were given
  signal to stop but they did not stop. On the contrary, they pushed
  the barrier and fled away on which Jagdish Prasad (PW.8) and
  Constable Badre Alam chased them. Gulam Sarbar jumped
  from the motorcycle near Bartand Pulia and tried to flee but was     C
  controlled and captured by them and upon interrogation, he
  revealed that Yakub was the person who had run away on the
  motorcycle. Jagdish Prasad (PW.8) 1.0. received secret
  information that the motorcycle used in the crime had been
  hidden in the house of Yakub (accused). A search was
                                                                       0
  conducted of his house in presence of two independent
  witnesses, namely, Muslim Ansari and Bhagirath Razak and the
  same was recovered. A seizure memo was prepared and was
  signed by the said two witnesses. The said seizure memo was
  marked as Exhibit - 6 and proved by Jagdish Prasad (PW.8),
   Investigating Officer.                                              E

       10. Jagdish Prasad (PW.8) deposed that he received
 secret information about the whereabouts of the appellant
 Dhiren Mahto and he conducted raid at Naya Bazar alongwith
 other police officials and Constable Badre Alam. Though he            F
 tried to escape, he was apprehended and arrested and LML
 Vespa Scooter BR 17-B-4455 was recovered. The arrest
 memo and recovery memo of the scooter was prepared in the
 presence of independent witnesses namely, Su nil Mand al and
 Santosh Vikral and the seizure memo was signed by the said            G
 witnesses. The same was marked as Exhibit 6-1 and was
 proved by him.

      It was at a later stage that the other accused were arrested.

      11. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the            H
    16       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A appellants have submitted that neither the witness of arrest
  memo of either of the appellants nor the panch witness of the
  recovery of scooter and motor cycle used in the crime has been
  examined by the prosecution. Even the police Constable Badre
  Alam who accompanied Jagdish Prasad (PW.8) LO. at the time
B of arrest of Gulam Sarbar has not been examined. Therefore,
  the case of arrest of the appellants as well as the recovery of
  the vehicles is not worth acceptance and the whole case of the
  prosecution becomes doubtful.

       12. We had been taken through the entire deposition of
C Jagdish Prasad (PW.8), Investigating Officer, however, no such
  question was put to him as to why those witnesses were not
  examined. In the absence of putting such an issue to Jagdish
  Prasad (PW.8), Investigating Officer, the appellants cannot
  seek any benefit of such omission or error by the prosecution
D in conducting of trial.

         13. This Court in Laxmibai (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Anr. v.
    Bhagwantbuva (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors., AIR 2013 SC 1204
    dealt with the issue raised herein observing as under:
E
         "31. Furthermore, there cannot be any dispute with
         respect to the settled legal proposition, that if a party
         wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of
         the statement of a witness, the said witness must be given
         an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his
F        attention to that part of it, which has been objected to by
         the other party, as being untrue. Without this, it is not
         possible to impeach his credibility. Such a law has been
         advanced in view of the statutory provisions enshrined in
         Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which enable the
G        opposite party to cross-examine a witness as regards
         information tendered in evidence by him during his initial
         examination in chief, and the scope of this provision
         stands enlarged by Section 146 of the Evidence Act,
         which permits a witness to be questioned, inter-alia, in
H        order to test his veracity. Thereafter, the unchallenged
     GULAM SARBAR v. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW                           17
       JHARKHAND) [DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.]
     part of his evidence is to be relied upon, for the reason            A
     that it is impossible for the witness to explain or elaborate
     upon any doubts as regards the same, in the absence
     of questions put to him with respect to the circumstances
     which indicate that the version of events provided by him,
     is not fit to be believed, and the witness himself, is               B
     unworthy of credit. Thus, if a party intends to impeach a
     witness, he must provide adequate opportunity to the
     witness in the witness box, to give a full and proper
     explanation. The same is essential to ensure fair play
     and fairness in dealing with witnesses. "                            c
(See also: Ravinder Kumar Sharma v. State of Assam & Ors.,
AIR 1999 SC 3571; Ghasita Sahu v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, AIR 2008 SC 1425; Rohtash Kumar v. State of
Haryana, JT 2013 (8) SC 181; and Gian Chand & Ors. v. State
of Haryana, JT 2013 (10) SC 515).                                         D

      14. In the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses,
it is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence
which is important, as there is no requirement under the Law
of Evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be              E
examined to prove/disprove a fact. It is a time- honoured
principle that evidence must be weighed and not counted. The
test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent,
credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid
emphasis on value provided by each witness, rather than the               F
multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is quality and not quantity,
which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been
provided by Section 134 of the Evidence Act. Even in Probate
cases, where the law requires the examination of at least one
attesting witness, it has been held that production of more               G
witnesses does not carry any weight. Thus, conviction can even
be based on the testimony of a sole eye witness, if the same
inspires confidence. (Vide: Vadivelu Thevar & Anr. v. State
of Madras; AIR 1957 SC 614; Kunju@ Balachandran v. State
of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2008 SC 1381; Bipin Kumar Monda/ v.
                                                                          H
    18      SUPREME GOUR{ REPORTS               [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A   State of West Bengal AIR 2010 SC 3638; Mahesh & Anr. v.
    State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 9 SCC 626; Prithipal Singh
    & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 1O; and Kishan
    Chand v. State of Haryana JT 2013( 1) SC 222).

8        15. If the prosecution had not examined the Panchnama
    witnesses and witnesses to the arrest memos of the appellants,
    the appellants could have examined them in their defence.

       16. The prosecution has successfully established the
  involvement of the appellants in the crime and the manner in
C which the crime has been committed establishes the
  conspiracy. The appellants in their statement under Section 313
  Cr.P.C. did not furnish any satisfactory explanation of the
  circumstances under which they were present at the place of
  occurrence. More so, the manner in which they fled away after
D the commission of the crime clearly indicates their involvement
  in the offence to conduct a conspiracy. Gopal Prasad Sinha
  (PW.7) has no enmity with either of the appellants and there .
  was no reason for him to involve them falsely in such a heinous
  crime.
E
        17. Thus, the trial court after appreciating the evidence
  recorded the findings of fact regarding the presence of the
  appellants at the place of occurrence as well as the presence
  of Dr. Gopal Prasad Sinha (PW.7). The said witnes~> was well
F acquainted with all the accused and particularly the appellants.
  He had seen them alongwith Binod Kumar (accused) gathering
  all the accused at the place of occurrence. Some of the accused
  persons particularly Gulam Sarbar engaged and used to sit
  together in a gumti and have tea there. A conspiracy was
  hatched by Binod Kumar (accused) as Sant KuMar Sinha
G (deceased) had created problems in his family life as well as
  in his business because the deceased did not likEl the illicit
  relationship between Binod Kumar (accused) and Shipra Sen
  Choudhery. The manner in which the crime was committed it
  seems that it was a pre-planned murder. There was sufficient
H light in the nearby building Nirankari Bhavan at the time of
    GULAM SARBAR v. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW                      19
      JHARKHAND) [DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.)
commission of the offence. There was no material contradiction,    A
embellishment or improvement in the deposition of Dr. Gopal
Prasad Sinha (PW.7). The defence though examined three
witnesses but none of them was relevant for their purpose.

    The trial court acquitted Dhiren Mahle of the charges under    B
Section 27 of the Arms Act giving cogent reasons.

      18. The High Court reappreciated the evidence and upheld
the findings of facts recorded by the trial court observing that
the ocular evidence was in consonance and in conformity with
the medical evidence and it was a clear cut case of conspiracy. C
The High Court rightly observed that normally the perpetrator
of crime in a case of conspiracy does not take part in the
execution rather such conspirator hires some criminal directly
or indirectly to execute the evil design planned by him. There
may be circumstances where the conspirator remains vigilant D
to conceal his identity and would not disclose the actual motive
 behind the conspiracy.
    19. Thus, we do not see any reason for interfering that the
prosecution witnesses have deposed falsely to implicate the        E
appellants.

     20. Thus, in view of the above, the facts and circumstances
of these appeals do not warrant interference. The appeals lack
merit and are dismissed accordingly.
                                                                   F
R.P.                                      Appeals dismissed.