Judgment M.Jeyapaul, J. 1. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 6-MA of 2011 was filed seeking leave to appeal against the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court qua the second accused Partap Singh and also against the sentence of life awarded instead of capital punishment of death for the first accused Rajbala. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.511 of 2011 was filed praying to condone the delay of 455 days in filing the appeal. 2. We have proposed to take up the main criminal miscellaneous application itself for disposal without wasting our energy on the disposal of the miscellaneous application filed under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 3. The facts, in brief, of the prosecution case, are that the deceased Surender used to advise the first accused Rajbala to maintain good character. The first accused Rajbala and the second accused Partap Singh threatened to kill Surender on the ground that false allegations were levelled against Rajbala by the deceased Surender. The deceased Surender was living alongwith the complainant Satya Narain and his mother Smt. Bhanti. On 26.11.2006 at about 4.00 AM the deceased Surender went out of the house responding to the call of the first accused Rajbala. The complainant Satya Narain witnessed the first accused Rajbala standing with a small tumbler in her hand having proclaimed to teach a lesson to Surender for levelling false allegations against her. The first accused Rajbala threw some liquid substance from the tumbler upon the face of Surender, who started crying. His clothes were burnt. His eyes, face and chest were also charred due to the acid effect. He was taken to the hospital in an unconscious condition. Thereafter he died in the hospital itself. On the basis of the complaint, given by Satya Narain, a case was registered by the police. After investigation, challan was filed for offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant/complainant would submit that the murder was committed cruelly by the first accused Rajbala and therefore she shall be sentenced to capital punishment of death. It is his further submission that the trial Court completely ignored the threat wielded by the second accused Partap Singh on account of the advice given by the deceased. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant/complainant would submit that the murder was committed cruelly by the first accused Rajbala and therefore she shall be sentenced to capital punishment of death. It is his further submission that the trial Court completely ignored the threat wielded by the second accused Partap Singh on account of the advice given by the deceased. The second accused Partap Singh should have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, it is submitted. 5. Except the evidence of the complainant that the second accused alongwith the first accused threatened to do away with the precious life of Surender as he used to advise the first accused Rajbala to maintain her character, there is no other evidence to implicate the second accused in this case. Mere expression of intention to kill a person would not constitute an offence of criminal conspiracy. In addition to the intention to kill expressed by the second accused, an agreement of the second accused with the first accused to commit the murder should be established to convict him under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. In other words the agreement is the gist of the offence. Conspiracy would come into existence only when the agreement to commit the crucial act is reached between two or more persons. The trial Court having adverted to the entire materials has come to a right decision that there is no evidence on record to establish criminal conspiracy as against the second accused Partap Singh. 6. Under such circumstances we hold that the trial Court has properly recorded acquittal of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code qua the second accused. We do not find any sound reason to entertain the application seeking leave to prefer an appeal as against the well considered order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court qua the second accused Partap Singh. 7. Coming to the plea for enhancement of sentence for the first accused Rajbala from that of life imprisonment, we find that the case does not fall under rarest of the rare category of cases. The genesis of the occurrence and the facts and circumstances under which the murder was alleged to have been committed, does not call for death penalty. Coming to the plea for enhancement of sentence for the first accused Rajbala from that of life imprisonment, we find that the case does not fall under rarest of the rare category of cases. The genesis of the occurrence and the facts and circumstances under which the murder was alleged to have been committed, does not call for death penalty. Therefore, no leave also can be given to prefer an appeal challenging the quantum of sentence. 8. In the result, the application filed by the applicant/complainant seeking leave to prefer an appeal stands dismissed. As we have considered the main miscellaneous application on merit, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.511 of 2011 praying to condone the delay stands dismissed as infractuous.