K. C. BHARGAVA, J. These revisions are directed against the order dated 17-9-1990 passed by the Sessions Judge, Lucknow, discharging both the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 (of Criminal Revision No. 339 of 1990 herein after referred to as opposite parties No. 1 and 2) under Sections 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Sessions Trial No. 293 of 1989 State v. Sanjay Singh and six others. 2. The facts of the cases as put forward by the prosecution as a result of the investigation held by the C. B. I. may be, summarised as under: 3. Syed Modi, the deceased, is alleged to belong to a lower middle class family residing at Sardar Nagar, Gorakhpur (U. P. ). He was brought up by his elder brother as his father expired when he was a child. He joined North Eastern Railway in the year 1979 as a candidate under the Sports Quota. Later on the became National Champion in Badminton and remained so for a period of about 8 years. During this period of 8 years he repersented India in various International Championships. In 1984 he was promoted as Sports Superintendent at Lucknow and thereafter he was promoted as Senior Welfare Superintendent in North Eastern Railways, Lucknow, the post which he was holding at the time of his murder on 28-7-1988. Opposite party No. 1 Dr. Sanjay Singh is the adopted son of Rananjay Singh who was former Raja of Amethi District Sultanpur (U. P. ). He was elected to the U. P. Assembly from Amethi, Constituency in two elections held in the years 1980 and 1985. Thereafter he became Minister in the U. P. Government and remained as Minister from 22-7-1983 to 26-8-1987. During the period 9-2-1914 to 12-3-1984 Dr. Sanjay Singh also held the Portfolio of Sports. During the period July, 1984 to August, 1987 he was also Chairman of the Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. (in short PCDF), Lucknow, except for a brief period of 5 days in July, 1985. Amita Kulkarni, opposite party No. 2 resided at Bombay and her mother Smt. Pushplate Kulkarni was a Lecturer in one of the Colleges at Bombay. Upto B. A. Part I, Amita Kulkarni, opposite party No. 2, was educated at Bombay and thereafter she did her B. A. Final Examination privately as a teacher candidate from Lucknow University in the year 1983-84. Upto B. A. Part I, Amita Kulkarni, opposite party No. 2, was educated at Bombay and thereafter she did her B. A. Final Examination privately as a teacher candidate from Lucknow University in the year 1983-84. During this period she was serving in the Clerical Grade in the Railways at Bombay. She worked as a Head Clerk from September, 1981 to 31-3-1985. In the month of February, 1984 she came to Lucknow to appear in the B. A. Final Examination from Lucknow University and thereafter she continued to stay at Lucknow. While at Lucknow she gave one months notice to the Central Railway Board on 16-3-1985 which was for her resignation from service. This resignation was accepted with effect from 1-4-1985. Prior to the giving of notice of resigna tion she was interviewed for the post of Manager Grade III in the P. C. D. F. Lucknow on 9-3-1985. Thereafter she was selected for this post and was appointed as Marketing Manager Grade IIi in P. C. D. F. with effect from 9-4-1985, against the Sports Quota. The post under Sports Quota was, for the first time, created in the P. C. D. F. at the behest of Dr. Sanjay Singh, opposite party No. 1. 4. According to the prosecution Akhlesh Singh, who is also one of the accused in this case but has not come in revision as a resident of District Rae Bareli. He is the son of late Ramendra Nath Singh alias Dhunni Singh who had been a big landlord and contractor. It is alleged that he has a criminal record and presently he is involved in a number of crimes along-with the members of his gang some of whom are also co-accused in the present case. 5. The deceased Syed Modi came in contact with Amita Kulkarni, opposite party No. 2, at Bejing (China) while participating in the IIIrd Inter national Invitation Championship in the year 1978. In the year 1982 Syed Modi was engaged to Amita Kulkarni. Dr. Sanjay Singh is alleged to have come in contact with Amita Kulkarni, opposite party No. 2, in the year 1983 when she came to Lucknow. From the beginning of 1984 Amita Kul karni opposite party No. 2 leant towards Dr. Sanjay Singh, opposite party No. 1 in spite of the fact that she was engaged to Syed Modi in the year 1982. From the beginning of 1984 Amita Kul karni opposite party No. 2 leant towards Dr. Sanjay Singh, opposite party No. 1 in spite of the fact that she was engaged to Syed Modi in the year 1982. It is alleged that their friendship developed into infatuation with each other which caused alarm to Syed Modi on account of which he remained continuously perturbed. Marriage between Syed Modi deceased and Amita Kulkarni, opposite party No. 2, took place on 14-5-1984 at the residence of Dr. Sanjay Singh, opposite party No. 1. 6. Dr. Sanjay Singh opposite party No. 1 later on developed and conti nued extra-marital relations with Amita Kulkarni, opposite party No. 2 and in fatuation of Dr. Sanjay Singh opposite party No. 1 increased with time towards Amita Kulkarni, opposite party No. 2 Syed Modi deceased had sus pected about this extra-marital relations and resented on account of these relations. There were frequent quarrels over this issue between Syed Modi and Amita Kulkarni opposite party No. 2 Amita Kulkarni opposite party No. 2 gave birth to a child on 4-2-1988 at Command Hospital, Lucknow where she was got admitted on account of the influence of Dr. Sanjay Singh. It is alleged that Amita Kulkarni had conceived two times prior to it but she aborted. It is alleged that Syed Modi deceased suspected that the concep tion of Modi Kulkarni, opposite party No. 2 was by Dr. Sanjay Singh. It is also alleged that Syed Modi deceased was so much in love with Amita Kulkarni that in spite of her infidelity and Sanjay Singhs infatuation for her, he never desired separation from Amita Kulkarni. In spite of all these facts Amita Kulkarni continued to carry her affairs with Dr. Sanjay Singh. When Dr. Sanjay Singh found that Syed Modi was becoming a stumbling block to the continuance of his sexual relations with Amita Kulkarni, he disclosed his intention to silence Syed Modi in his own way. 7. It is alleged that Dr. Sanjay Singh Amita Kulkarni opposite parties, and Akhlesh Singh, Amar Bahadur Singh, Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu, Jitendra Singh alias Tinku and Balai Singh non-applicants some time in June, 1988 and particularly on 28-7-1988 were party to a criminal conspiracy the object of which was to commit the murder of Syed Modi. In pursuance of this conspiracy Dr. Sanjay Singh Amita Kulkarni opposite parties, and Akhlesh Singh, Amar Bahadur Singh, Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu, Jitendra Singh alias Tinku and Balai Singh non-applicants some time in June, 1988 and particularly on 28-7-1988 were party to a criminal conspiracy the object of which was to commit the murder of Syed Modi. In pursuance of this conspiracy Dr. Sanjay Singh and Akhlesh Singh met together at Yatrik Hotel at Allahabad in mid June, 1988 where Dr. Sanjay Singh is said to have asked Akhlesh Singh to arrange for the murder of Syed Modi. There after on 28-7-1988 Dr. Sanjay Singh met Bhagwati Singh in this connection and then a meeting was arranged by Akhlesh Singh at the residence of Dr. Sanjay Singh. Dr. Sanjay Singh entrusted the task of killing Syed Modi to Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu. Thereafter Sanjay Singh left Lucknow in the night of 20-7-1988 reaching Delhi on 21-7-1988. Thereafter Dr. Sanjay Singh came back to Lucknow by train in the morning of 24-7-1988 by leaving Delhi on 23-7- 1988. Thereafter Sanjay Singh again left Lucknow by train on the night of 25-7-1988 and reached Delhi on 26-7-1988. He again came back to Lucknow in the morning of 29-7-1988 by train. 8. It is alleged that Akhlesh Singh introduced Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu to Dr. Sanjay at the latters residence on 20-7-1988. He obtained Marutivanno. HYG 1959 from Abdul Khaliq brother of Abdul Malik. This was procured on 20-7-1988. It is further alleged that Dr. Sanjay Singh made several calls to Akhlesh Singh of Village Lalpur Chauhan District Rae Bareli and to Bombay at the residence of Smt. Pushplata Kulkarni, mother of Amita Kulkarni, opposite party No. 2 in connection with this conspiracy. 9. On the date of incident i. e. 28-7-1988 Amar Bahadur Singh accom panied by Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu and Balai Singh non-applicants went in Maruti Van No. HYG 1959 driven by Jitendra Singh alias Tinku to K. D. Singh Babu Stadium. Amar Bahadur Singh and Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu took positions outside the northern gate near (Mini Swimming Pool) K. D. Singh Babu Stadium, Lucknow with an intention to kill Syed Modi. Syed Modi deceased came out of the Stadium on his Scooter at about 7-45 p. m. Thereupon he was fired upon by Amar Bahadur Singh and Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu as a result of which Syed Modi fell down. Syed Modi deceased came out of the Stadium on his Scooter at about 7-45 p. m. Thereupon he was fired upon by Amar Bahadur Singh and Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu as a result of which Syed Modi fell down. Thereafter Amar Bahadur Singh and Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu ran away from the scene of the incident and escaped after getting into the aforesaid Maruti Van which was parked nearby. 10. It is further alleged that Amita Kulkarni exhibited an unnatural and abnormal conduct before and after the crime inasmuch as she did not accompany Syed Modi to the Stadium for practice of Badminton on 28-7-1988; after receiving the message of the accident of Syed Modi instead of enquiry about his condition and rushing to the Hospital, she tried to inform Dr. Sanjay Singh on phone at Delhi and thereafter she visited the residence of Dr. Sanjay Singh and then went to the Hospital. It is further alleged that on the date of burial of Syed Modi Amita Kulkarni stayed in the Hotel Marina, Gorakhpur and did not stay at the residence of her in-laws, She also did not participate in the ceremony of Majlis held on 31-7-1988 at Sardar Nagar, Gorakhpur. It is also alleged that at Gorakh pur she also cautioned Abid Haider brother of Syed Modi not to divulge anything about her relations with Sajay Singh to the Investigating Agency. It is further alleged that during mourning period she withdrew heavy amounts from the Bank and submitted papers for claim of L. I. C. , and got the L. D. A. plot transferred in her name. After Syed Modi fell on the ground he was taken to the Hospital where the Doctor declared him dead. 11. Investigation was done and as a result of the investigation by the C. B. I. , seven persons were charge- cheeted under various Sections. Learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow vide his order dated 17-9-1990 discharged Dr. Sanjay Singh, opposite party No. 1 and Amita Kulkarni opposite party No. 2 under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 12. Aggrieved against this order of discharge this present revision has been tiled by the C. B. 1. 13. Learned counsel for the revisionist Shri S. G. Samant and on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 and 2 Shri Ram Jethmalani have been heard. 14. 12. Aggrieved against this order of discharge this present revision has been tiled by the C. B. 1. 13. Learned counsel for the revisionist Shri S. G. Samant and on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 and 2 Shri Ram Jethmalani have been heard. 14. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that in revision this Court has power to set aside the order of discharge passed by the learned Sessions Judge and to direct the learned Sessions Judge to a flagrant miscarriage of justice. 15. In Akalu Ahir and others v. Ramdeo, (1973) 2 SCC 583 , it was observed that as a general rule, this power in spite of the wide language of Sections 435 and 439, Cr. P. C. does not contemplete interference with the conclusion of fact in the absence of serious legal infirmity and failure of justice. 16. Thus, a perusal of the above authorities goes to show that the powers of High Court in revision are limited and it has to act in exceptional eases where gross injustice or illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Court below. This Court has not to go into the merits of the case while hearing a revision against the order of discharge but if an illegality or irregularity has been committed by the trial Court or material evidence has been committed by the trial Court or material evidence has been ignored by the trial Court then the High Court has power to set aside the finding of the trial Court and to direct that the charge be framed against the persons. 17. The provisions of discharge and for framing of charge are con tained in Sections 227 and 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 227, Cr. P. C. deals with the situation where an accused can be discharged. If after considering the evidence on record and after hearing the submissions of the counsel for the parties, the Court considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the order of discharge is to be passed. It the Court finds that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then an order of framing charge has to be passed under Section 228 of the Cr. P. C. 18. Both these Sections have been the subject of interpretation by the Honble Supreme Court. 19. It the Court finds that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then an order of framing charge has to be passed under Section 228 of the Cr. P. C. 18. Both these Sections have been the subject of interpretation by the Honble Supreme Court. 19. In the case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, AIR 1979 SC 366 Honble Supreme Court, on consideration of the various authorities cited before their Lordships, deduced the following principles : " (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out ; (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave sus picion against the accused which has not been properly explaine. 1 the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and pro ceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima fade case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, ho will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Cods the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienc ed Court cannot act merely as a post-office a mouth-piece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. " 20. In the case of Supdt. This, however, does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. " 20. In the case of Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhanja and others, AIR 1984 SC 52, in para 18 of the judgment Honble Supreme Court observed as under : "the case was at the stage of framing charges; the prosecution evi dence had not yet commenced. The Magistrate had, therefore, to consider the above question on a general consideration of the materials placed before him by the investigating police officer. " 21. In the case of Mite of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 , the Honble Supreme Court observed as under: "the standard of lest and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. . . . . . . . . . . . . . If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are something like even at the con clusion of the trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt, the case is to end in his acquittal. But if, on the other hand. it is so at the initial stage of making an order under Section 227 or 226, then in such a situation ordinarily generally (sic) will have to be made will be one under Section 226 and not under Section 227". 22. But if, on the other hand. it is so at the initial stage of making an order under Section 227 or 226, then in such a situation ordinarily generally (sic) will have to be made will be one under Section 226 and not under Section 227". 22. In the case of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and others, AIR 1990 SC 1962 , it was observed as under: "it seems well-settled that at the Sections 227-228 stage the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may for this limited purpose sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. " 23. All these principles which have been laid down in the above-noted cases were also adopted by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Naihu Mal Chordia, 1989 (1) SCC 715 . 24. The Court of the learned Sessions Judge has to sift evidence of the prosecution witnesses which have been placed before the Court alongwith the charge-sheet as to whether there is evidence against the opposite parties on which the charge can be framed. If there is sufficient evidence on which a charge can be based then there is no option for the learned trial Court but to frame a charge. The accused persons cannot be discharged. If the evidence of the prosecution indicates that the accused persons have committed the crime then the only course open for the trial Court, in such cases is to frame charge under Section 228, Cr. P. C. but if there is no evidence then the charge cannot be framed and the accused persons will have to be discharged under Section 227, Cr. P. C. 25. It is in the light of the principle enunciated by the Honble Supreme Court that the Court has to proceed in order to judge as to whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant framing of charge under Section 228, Cr. P. C. 25. It is in the light of the principle enunciated by the Honble Supreme Court that the Court has to proceed in order to judge as to whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant framing of charge under Section 228, Cr. P. C. against the opposite parties as contended by the learned counsel for the applicant. 26. According to the learned counsel for applicant there is no direct evidence of the involvement of the opposite parties in the crime but there is circumstantial evidence against them which according to the learned counsel, goes to prove that they had conspired with other accused persons to commit the murder of Syed Modi. 27. The principles relating to the circumstantial evidence have been laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in a number of cases. The follow ing tests have to be satisfied when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence: (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established ; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused ; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else, and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. 28. Criminal conspiracy has been defined under Section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code. Punishment for the criminal conspiracy is provided under Section 120-B, I. P. C. 29. In the case of Emperor v. Aftab Mohammad Khan and others, AIR 1940 All 291, it was observed: "the offence of conspiracy under Section 120-B is one which requites detailed and specific proof against each of the accused that he individually participated in a particular design to do a particular criminal thing. " 30. In the case of Emperor v. Aftab Mohammad Khan and others, AIR 1940 All 291, it was observed: "the offence of conspiracy under Section 120-B is one which requites detailed and specific proof against each of the accused that he individually participated in a particular design to do a particular criminal thing. " 30. Sections 120-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code have been subject to interpretation by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Kehar Singh and others v. State, (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1988 SC 1883 , it was observed in the above-noted case as under : "the most important ingredient of the offence of conspiracy is the agreement between two or mote persons to do an illegal act. The illegal act may or may not be done in pursuance of agreement, but the very agreement is an offence and is punishable. Entering into an agreement by two or more persons to do an illegal act or legal act by illegal means is the very quintessence of the offence of conspiracy. " At Para 268 of passage from Russel on Crime (123 nd Vol. 1,202) was quoted with approval which runs as under: "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 attempting to do them nor in inciting others to do them, but in the forming of the scheme or agreement between the parties. Agreement is essential. Mere knowledge, or even discussion, of the plan is not, per se, enough. " It was further observed in para 272: "generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. . . . . . . . . . . . But the Court must require whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the latter does. It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy required some kind of physical manifestation of agree ment. The express agreement, however, need not be proved. Nor actual meeting of two persons in necessary. It is necessary to prove the (sic) or to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient. It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy required some kind of physical manifestation of agree ment. The express agreement, however, need not be proved. Nor actual meeting of two persons in necessary. It is necessary to prove the (sic) or to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient. " In para 273, it has been observed as under: "the relative acts or conduct of the parties must be conscientious and clear to mark their concurrence as to what should be done. The concurrence cannot be inferred by a group of irrelevant facts artfully arranged so as to give an appearance of coherence. The innocuous, innocent or inadvertent events and incidents should not enter the judicial verdict. " 31. In the case of State (Delhi Admn.) v. V. C. Shukla and another, AIR 1980 SC 1382 , the Honble Supreme Court in para 8 of the judgment, had an occasion to deal with the provisions of Section 120-B, I. P. C. It was observed as under; "before we proceed further, we might indicate that it is well-settled that in order to prove a criminal conspiracy which is punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, there must be direct or circumstantial evidence to show that there (sic) two or more persons to commit an officer. This clearly envisages that there must be a meeting of minds resulting in an ultimate deci sion taken by the conspirators regarding the commission of an offence. It is true that in most case. ;, it will be difficult to get direct evidence on an agreement to conspire but a conspiracy can be inferred even from circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. " 32. Thus, in view of the authorities mentioned above, it is apparent that in a criminal conspiracy there should be at least meeting of minds between two or more persons. If two or more persons have not conspired together then the offence of conspiracy cannot be said to be made out. It is not necessary that persons entering into a criminal conspiracy should meet physically. Only meeting of minds is sufficient i. e. , there should be an agreement between them to commit an offence. 33. If two or more persons have not conspired together then the offence of conspiracy cannot be said to be made out. It is not necessary that persons entering into a criminal conspiracy should meet physically. Only meeting of minds is sufficient i. e. , there should be an agreement between them to commit an offence. 33. In the background of the legal position stated above the facts of this case are to be scrutinised in order to see whether the circumstantial evidence against Dr. Sanjay Singh, opposite party No. 1, and Srimati Amita Modi, opposite party No. 2, is sufficient to frame a charge against them (sic) conspiracy. The case of the prosecution, as stated earlier is that both the opposite parties have conspired together and with other co-accused (non-applicants) to commit the murder of Syed Modi, National Badminton Champion. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S. D. Samant, the learned Sessions Judge has framed a truncated charge and has discharged the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 against whom there was sufficient evidence to frame a charge for committing the murder of Syed Modi. These two opposite parties have conspired to eliminate Syed Modi from this world so that both the opposite parties may live together and enjoy the sexual life. 34. This is the admitted case of the opposite parties that Syed Modi was a National Badminton Champion and Smt. Amita Modi was also a Bad minton player of repute. Both of them met while playing Badminton and they developed friendship. Later on they started loving each other and decided to marry. It is also in evidence and admitted to the opposite parties that Smt. Amita Modi also came in contact with Dr. Sanjay Singh, opposite party No. 1 before her marriage and she also developed friendship with Dr. Sanjay Singh. Thereafter they became very intimate and later on developed sexual relations. 35. Dr. Sanjay Singh conferred a number of benefits on Amita Modi and Syed Modi deceased which have been narrated by the learned Sessions Judge and they need not be repeated here. 36. The evidence on record shows that Syed Modi was almost convinced that the relationship between Dr. Sanjay Singh and Smt. Amita Modi was sexual. The deceased Syed Modi with the full knowledge of this relationship went through the marriage in May, 1984. The marriage was helped and facilitated by Dr. 36. The evidence on record shows that Syed Modi was almost convinced that the relationship between Dr. Sanjay Singh and Smt. Amita Modi was sexual. The deceased Syed Modi with the full knowledge of this relationship went through the marriage in May, 1984. The marriage was helped and facilitated by Dr. Sanjay Singh. The marriage took place at the residence of Dr. Sanjay Singh and the deceased did so at the disregard of his family members who were not present at the time of marriage. This marriage was a tripartite affair and neither the deceased made a condition that relationship between Dr. Sanjay Singh and Smt. Amita Modi should stop nor Dr. Sanjay Singh found the marriage any kind of hinderance or destruction in the continu ance of his sexual relationships with Amita. All the three found this arrange ment convenient to themselves. 37. The friendship between Dr. Sanjay Singh and Smt. Amita Modi continued even after the marriage and the relationship was no secret from the deceased. Deceased understood that the relationship was sexual and he was almost convinced that Smt. Amita Modi was carrying the child of Dr. Sanjay Singh. Throughout the duration of marriage from 1984 upto the last day the deceased fully enjoyed the help, support, material facilitise and advancement of career. 38. The evidence also unfolds that the three letters written by Smt. Pushpa Kulkarni, mother of Smt. Amita Modi suggest that she knew of the growing relationship between Dr. Sanjay Singh and Smt. Amita Modi but she never tried to stop it but she was greatly impressed by the qualities of head and heart Dr. Sanjay Singh. She appreciated and supported this relationship between Dr. Sanjay Singh and Smt. Amita Modi. She tried to harmonise the two relationship. 39. Learned counsel for the applicant, Shri S. D. Samant, has argued that the learned Sessions Judge has not accepted that there was sexual relation ship between Dr. Sanjay Singh and Smt. Amita Modi and has not placed any reliance on the evidence led by the prosecution. As a matter of fact the learned Sessions Judge in para 169 at page 39 of the judgment has referred to the statements of various witnesses of the prosecution about the intimacy which developed between the two. Sanjay Singh and Smt. Amita Modi and has not placed any reliance on the evidence led by the prosecution. As a matter of fact the learned Sessions Judge in para 169 at page 39 of the judgment has referred to the statements of various witnesses of the prosecution about the intimacy which developed between the two. He has also mentioned that this material has not been challenged on behalf of the defence which goes to show that the prosecution version about the relationship between the opposite parties was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge. Moreover before this Court the learned counsel for the opposite parties Shri Ram Jethmalani, has fairly conceded the relationship which existed between Dr. Sanjay Singh and Smt. Amita Modi. He has conceded that there existed a "juicy sexual relationship" between Dr. Sanjay Singh and Smt. Amita Modi after the marriage of Syed Modi with Smt. Amita Modi and this continued till the death of Syed Modi. Thus, the prosecution version about the existence of sexual relationship between Dr. Sanjay Singh and Smt. Amita Modi is admitted to the defence and the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to consider the evidence on record after concluding that such a relationship existed between them. 40. This relationship between the opposite parties has been relied upon by the prosecution as one of the circumstances for them to eliminate Syed Modi. Learned trial Court has considered this aspect of the case and has come to the conclusion that opposite parties and no motive to eliminate Syed Modi from their life. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that Syed Modi had made up his mind to go back to Bombay so that Smt. Amita Modi may be away from Lucknow and Dr. Sanjay Singh will not have easy access to her. No doubt, the evidence on record bears this fact that Syed Modi had made up his mind to settle at Bombay but at the same time Suit. Amita Modi did not oppose this idea of Syed Modi and she also wanted to go to Bombay as has been stated by Squadron Leader M. S. Chaudhary, PW 106. He has stated that Amita Modi had said to him that they were to go to Bombay where she was to join Computer Course. Amita Modi did not oppose this idea of Syed Modi and she also wanted to go to Bombay as has been stated by Squadron Leader M. S. Chaudhary, PW 106. He has stated that Amita Modi had said to him that they were to go to Bombay where she was to join Computer Course. Therefore, Amita Modi had accepted the decision of Syed Modi and when Smt. Amita Modi did not oppose the decision of Syed Modi it cannot be said that it was a circumstance against her to enter into the conspiracy with other accused persons to eliminate Syed Modi. 41. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that several telephone calls were made by Dr. Sanjay Singh to Smt. Amita Modi and Akhilesh, co-accused (non-applicant) and according to the prosecution these talks show that they were talking about the elimination of Syed Modi. According to the prosecution Dr. Sanjay Singh had asked Akhilesh Singh (co-accused) to arrange for murder of Syed Modi. The evidence on record discloses that Dr. Sanjay Singh made a number of calls to Amita Modi while she was at Bombay and to Akhilesh Singh, accused in the present case. It is not necessary for this Court to go in detail about these calls. It will suffice to say that Dr. Sanjay Singh had intimate relations with Amita Modi and Akhilesh Singh was personal and political friend of Dr, Sanjay Singh. It has also come in evidence that during this period the election of former Prime Minister, Sri V. P. Singh, also took place and Dr. Sanjay Singh was looking after the election campaign of Sri V. P. Singh. Akhilesh (non- applicant) was made incharge of that election campaign. Therefore, it was natural for Dr. Sanjay Singh to enquire from Akhilesh Singh about the progress in election campaign. Therefore, nothing unusual could be inferred from these calls. Similarly the calls made to Smt. Amita Modi were also routine calls which were very much usual in view of the relationship existing between Dr. Sanjay Singh and Smt. Amita Modi. There is no evidence on record to show as to what transpired between the three on telephone. Therefore, nothing unusual could be inferred from these calls. Similarly the calls made to Smt. Amita Modi were also routine calls which were very much usual in view of the relationship existing between Dr. Sanjay Singh and Smt. Amita Modi. There is no evidence on record to show as to what transpired between the three on telephone. The learned Sessions Judge has considered this aspect and it cannot be said that the learned Sessions Judge has committed any illegality in coming to the conclusion that these calls had nothing to do with the alleged conspiracy. 42. The next evidence on which heavy reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that Smt. Pushpa Kulkarni, the mother of Amita Modi has stated as PW 38 that Dr. Sanjay Singh had said that "he will silence Syed Modi in his own way. " These words are sought to be read out of context. These words have to be read in the context in which they have been used and the entire statement of Smt. Pushpa Kulkarni is to be consider ed. Relevant portion of this statement is being reproduced which runs as under:- "the attitude of Modi remained the same when he returned back to Bombay from abroad and during talks he conveyed his decision to shift from Lucknow to Bombay for good. This change in the behaviour of Modi was discussed in routine course with Dr. Sanjay Singh during his trip to Bombay, when, he, in his usual manner, told to silence Modi in his own way. I, therefore, became confi dent that as in the past, he had sorted out matters with Modi he will sort out the same now also and Amita with whom he was very much attached, could lead her life in the same way as in the past without any problem for Modi. " A perusal of this statement goes to show that Dr. Sanjay Singh never intended to eliminate Modi from this world and these cannot be interpreted in the way in which they are sought to be interpreted by the learned counsel for the appli cant. From this statement it appears that there were disputes between Syed Modi and Smt. Amita Modi and they were settled by Dr. Sanjay Singh on previous occasions. From this statement it appears that there were disputes between Syed Modi and Smt. Amita Modi and they were settled by Dr. Sanjay Singh on previous occasions. The evidence on record, particularly the Diary written by Smt. Amita Modi, goes to show that there were fights between Amita Kulkarni and Syed Modi with respect to the relations of Smt. Amita Modi with DT. Sanjay Singh but later on the disputes were settled and they lived under the same roof. Therefore, if this statement is read keeping in view the entire evidence on record then it cannot be said that Dr. Sanjay Singh intended to enter into any conspiracy with Smt. Amita Modi or other co-accused persons to murder Syed Modi. 43. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that Dr. Sanjay Singh opposite party No. 1 and Akhilesh Singh (non-applicant) had met in Yatrik Hotel, Allahabad sometime in the middle of June, 1988. It is alleged that at that time Dr. Sanjay Singh had asked Akhilesh Singh to make some arrangement for murder of Syed Modi. It is further argued that on 20-7-1988 Akhilesh Singh arranged one Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu (non-applicant) accused and arranged a meeting at the residence of Dr. Sanjay Sipgh. There Dr. Sanjay Singh entrusted the work of killing Syed Modi to Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu. According to the prosecution there is no evidence on this point except the lie-dector test conducted by Shri V. N. Sehgal whose report is D-98. Much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on this test. 44. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the trial Judge has wrongly rejected the polygraphy test report (D-98) submitted by Shri V. N. Sehgal, Director Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory, New Delhi. According to the learned counsel for the opposite parties this lie detector test cannot be taken into consideration as it has not acquired the status of evidence. He has placed reliance on the case of James Alphonso Frye v. United States, 34 American Law Reports 145. In that case a question arose whether the lie detector test can be considered in evidence. It was observed: "it is a blood pressure deception test. He has placed reliance on the case of James Alphonso Frye v. United States, 34 American Law Reports 145. In that case a question arose whether the lie detector test can be considered in evidence. It was observed: "it is a blood pressure deception test. It is asserted that blood pres sure is influenced by change in the emotions of the witness and that the systolic blood pressure rises are brought about by nervous impulses sent to sympathetic branch of autonomic nervous system. " It was held that the systolic blood pressure test for determining the truthfulness of testimony has not yet gained such standing and scientific recognition as to justify the admission of expert testimony deduced from tests made under such theory. 45. The same view was adopted in the following cases. (1) People of State of New York v. Vincent Forte, 119 American Law Reports 1198. (2) State of Wisconsin v. Joha J. Bohner, 86 American Law Reports 611. (3) Inzion Henderson v. State of Oklahoma, 23 American Law Reports 1292. 46. Moreover a perusal of the report of expert (D-98) it is clear that the learned Sessions Judge rightly did not place any reliance on this report. It is mentioned in both the reports that answers given. . . . . . . . . . . . on these questions are perhaps correct, (emphasis supplied ). It shows that expert him self is not sure about the correctness of the answers given by 2 accused during the test. 47. On behalf of applicant reliance is placed on the case of State v. S. J. Choudhary, (1980) 2 SCC 481. In that case the question whether the opinion of an expert in regard to type script would fall within the ambit of Section 45 of the Evidence Act was referred to a larger bench in view of the decision in the case of Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343 . In Hanumants case the Honble Supreme Court has held that the opinion of an expert that a particular letter was typed on particular machine does not fall within the ambit of Section 45 of the Evidence Act and is inadmissible. This case does not help the applicant. In Hanumants case the Honble Supreme Court has held that the opinion of an expert that a particular letter was typed on particular machine does not fall within the ambit of Section 45 of the Evidence Act and is inadmissible. This case does not help the applicant. Thus, from the perusal of the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the opposite parties it can be safely said that till this time lie detector test or polygraphy test has not been accepted as expert evidence on account of the fact that it is not effective for the purposes of determining the truth. Upto this time there is no proof of general scientific recognition of the efficacy of this test. No decision of any Court in India has been cited in order to show that test has been accepted by any Court either in civil or criminal cases. Even from the report itself it is apparent that the answers to the questions may perhaps be correct. Therefore, the expert who conducted this lie detector test himself is not sure as to whether the answers given by the two persons who were sub jected to this test have given correct answers or not. Therefore, the prosecu tion has utterly failed to prove this circumstantial evidence against the opposite parties, 48. It may also be mentioned that on the date of murder i. e. , 28-7-1988 Dr. Sanjay Singh was not at Lucknow but was at Delhi. 49. As against Smt. Amita Modi it is said that she was not having any urinary trouble and she feigned illness in order to prevent Syed Modi deceased from going to Delhi on 27-7-1988 to receive Arjun Award which was to be given to Syed Modi. It is also argued that she did not accompany Syed Modi to the Stadium on the fateful day on account of this feigned illness. Statements have been referred of two Doctors who have stated that Smt. Amita Modi con sulted them privately and she was advised to get her urine tested but she did not get her urine examined. The learned Sessions Judge has considered this aspect of the case and has come to the conclusion that in India, women are reluctant to get themselves medically examined and to get other tests done. The learned Sessions Judge has considered this aspect of the case and has come to the conclusion that in India, women are reluctant to get themselves medically examined and to get other tests done. They are reluctant and take the things easy and only when the trouble becomes acute then they show their willingness to submit to medical examination or to start treatment. 50. Learned counsel for the prosecution has further argued that the post-murder conduct of Dr. Sanjay Singh and Smt. Amita Modi is also relevant in the present case. He has placed reliance on the following two cases : (1)Kehar 1883; and others v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1988 SC Singh and (2) Subedar Tewari v. State of U. P. , AIR 1989, SCC 733. In both these cases it was held that the post crime conduct of the accused is relevant and this circumstance can be taken into consideration. About Dr. Sanjay Singh it is said that he suddenly disappeared from Lucknow between 18-8-1988 and 24-8-1988. The investigation was taken over by the C. B. I. on 2-8-1988. Dr. Sanjay Singh was at Amethi from 4-8-1988 to 17-8-1988 as his father had died on 4-8-1988. His interrogation commenced on 25-8-1988. There is no evidence on record to show that Dr. Sanjay Singh was required between 18-8-1988 to 24-8-J988 by the Police and it he was not available whether any attempt was made by the police to arrest him if he had absconded. Even proceedings under Section 82/83, Cr. P. C. should have been drawn by the police, against him but it was not done and, therefore, it cannot be said that Dr. Sanjay Singh opposite party No. 1 absconded in order to escape the inter rogation by the police during the period mentioned above. 51. About Smt. Amita Modi it is said that after the incident had taken place and she received message of death of Syed Modi, she did not straightway proceed to the Hospital but tried to telephone Dr. Sanjay Singh and thereafter went to his place. The evidence on record goes to show that the message which was given to Smt. Amita Modi was that Syed Modi has met with an accident. It was not told to her that he has been shot at. As has come in the earlier part of the judgment Smt. Amita Modi had special relations with Dr. The evidence on record goes to show that the message which was given to Smt. Amita Modi was that Syed Modi has met with an accident. It was not told to her that he has been shot at. As has come in the earlier part of the judgment Smt. Amita Modi had special relations with Dr. Sanjay Singh, therefore, she might have thought to contact him so that best possible aid may be given to Syed Modi. Only for this purpose she could have contacted Dr. Sanjay Singh. The suggestion of the prosecution that she wanted to tell Dr. Sanjay Singh that Syed Modi has died cannot be accepted in view the fact that this fact was not told to her by the two persons who had gone to inform Smt. Amita Modi at her residence. Therefore, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be said to be perverse 52. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the prosecution that when the last rites of Syed Modi were performed at Gorakhpur Smt. Amita Modi did not stay at the house of her in-laws and she did not attend the Majlis ceremony at their residence. Smt. Arnita Modi was not a Moham medan while Syed Modi was a Mohammedan. If she had not stayed at the residence of her in-laws or did not attend the Muslim ceremony known as Majlis then it cannot be said that this conduct will be a circumstance in proving that she was a party to the criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of Syed Modi. Therefore, nothing turns upon this fact. 53. The last circumstance relied upon against Smt. Amita Modi is that after the death of Syed Modi when she was in the mourning period, she took out large sum of money from the Account and took steps to get the properties in the name of Syed Modi situated or transferred in her name. This fact cannot also be said to be a circumstance against Smt. Amita Modi and it does not go to show that she was also a participant in the criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of Syed Modi. 54. In view of the above discussion, it will be apparent that the learned Sessions Judge has considered every aspect of the case in his order while dis charged two opposite parties. 54. In view of the above discussion, it will be apparent that the learned Sessions Judge has considered every aspect of the case in his order while dis charged two opposite parties. In doing so he has not committed any illega lity or irregularity and the finding of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be said to be perverse or against the weight of evidence on record. Therefore, in the revisional jurisdiction this Court cannot appraise the evidence again. As the finding of the learned Sessions Judge is based on the evidence available on the record the same does not deserve to be set aside. The result is that the revision petitions deserve to be dismissed. Both the revisions are dismissed. Revision dismissed. .