JUDGMENT Mehtab S.Gill, J.:-This is an appeal filed by the State of U.T. Chandigarh against the judgment dated 1.12.2006 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby he acquitted respondents Devinder Pal Singh alias Master, Partap Singh Maan and Gursharan Kaur, Advocate. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued, that the learned trial Court has ignored the evidence on record. Respondents with their co-accused namely Navneet Singh, Manjit Singh, Manmohan Singh, Gurjant Singh and Balwant Singh all Proclaimed Offenders hatched a conspiracy to cause the death of Sumedh Singh Saini, Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh. The statement of P .R.Mehta PW -1 establishes the case of the prosecution who has stated, that he purchased car No.PBL-4559 in the year 1994 from the Punjab National Bank Staff Union of which he was the General Secretary. He further deposed that he had sold the said car in the year 1991 (Ed-?) through one Prince Mehta, who was in the business of selling second-hand cars. The learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the statement of P.R. Mehta PW-1. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents have argued, that the only witness P.R. Mehta PW-1 cannot be relied upon, as he has not named the respondents, nor did he identify them. The other witness Paramjit Kaur did not come into the witness-box. She was not even cited as a witness, while presenting the challan. The other two witnesses Saja Mal and Baldev Raj who could prove the conspiracy, had died before they could come into the witness-box. The learned trial Court rightly did not record the statement of respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C., as there was no evidence against them. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. 5. The sole witness produced by the prosecution i.e. P.R. Mehta PW-1 has deposed only to this effect, that he had purchased Ambassador car No.PBL­-4559 in the year 1994 from the Punjab National Bank Staff Union, of which he was the General Secretary. He further deposed that he had sold this car through one Prince Mehta to Vijay Kumar. This was the car which was allegedly used by the assailants. The learned trial Court has rightly held that nothing has come on record that it was the respondents who directly or in conspiracy with others had put the RDX in the car. He further deposed that he had sold this car through one Prince Mehta to Vijay Kumar. This was the car which was allegedly used by the assailants. The learned trial Court has rightly held that nothing has come on record that it was the respondents who directly or in conspiracy with others had put the RDX in the car. P.R.Mehta PW-1 in his cross-examination has stated that he never identified even the photograph of respondent Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar as the person accompanying the purchaser Vijay Kumar. He denied that he had sold the car to Vijay kumar. The learned trial Court has rightly held that the testimony of this witness is of no value. Apart from the statement of P.R. Mehta PW-1, no evidence was brought on record by the prosecution, inspite of being given several opportunities. The learned trial Court rightly did not record the statement of respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C., as there was no evidence against them. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court. Dismissed. —————————————