judgment In veiw of the acquittal of all the seven accused by the trial -Court of charge No.1 framed under Section 302 read with Sec. 120·B IPC and the High Court's dismissal of Criminal Appeal 605 of 1978 filed against that acquittal which, as stated earlier, was filed only againt accused 2. 3, 4 and 7 and not against accused 1 and 6, insofar as it related accused 2, 3, 4 and 7, Mr. V. S. Desai, learned senior counsel appearing for Prakash, accused 5, contended in his arguments that the conviction of that accused alone for conspiracy under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC is unsustainable in law as at least two persons are required for an offence of conspiracy under Section 120-A IPC and he relied upon a decision of this Court in Topandas v. State of Bombay ( AIR 1956 SC 33 ) in support of his contention. In that case the charge under Section 120 B IPC was framed against four named persons who had been arrayed as accused 1 to 4. The High Court acquitted accused 2 to 4 and convicted accused 1 alone of that charge and sentenced him, holding that he and some others had conspired together and fabricated the deed of assignment put forward by accused I and that accused "1 alone could not have fabricated that document. This Court allowed the appeal of accused I and set aside his conviction under Section 120-B IPC holding that the conviction of one of the accused alone was unsustainable in law having regard to the requirement of Sec. l20-A IPC. Mr. O. P. Rana, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra sought to support the judgment of the High Court in this case against accused 5 in view of the conviction of accused I and 6 for the murder of Malan under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. We repelled that submission of Mr. Rana in view of the fact that those two accused J and 6 had been acquitted by the trial Court of charge 'No. 1 framed against them under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC and no appeal against their acquittal had been filed in the High Court and also the fact that accused 5 was not a party to charge No.4 which was framed only against accused 1,6 and 7. It was in view of this technical flaw that we a1l0wed the appeal of accused 5 without going into the evidence regarding the merits of the case against him. Mr. Rana did not draw our attention in the course of his arguments to the fact that in charge No. 1 even the approver PW1 is alleged to have conspired with the seven accused to commit these three murders or contend that in view of that circumstance and the finding of the High Court that the approver PW 1 also was a party to the conspiracy the conviction of accused 5 alone of the charge of conspiracy under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC could be sustained. We were, therefore, not called upon to consider any such question. AIR 1956 SC 33 relied on. Appeal allowed.