JUDGMENT : (Rajendra Prakash Soni, J.) : 1. The appellants have assailed the judgment and order dated 08.08.2018 rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 25 of 2015 (CIS No. 25/2015) titled as “State of Rajasthan Vs. Sajjan @ Kalla & Ors.”, whereby the appellants were held guilty of various offences and were sentenced as under:- APPELLANT : SAJJAN @ KALLA : Sentence under Section Sentence awarded Fine imposed Fine Default Sentence 102-B IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 10,000/- Two Years R.I. 302 r/w 109 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- Two Years R.I. 387 r/w 109 IPC Seven Years’ Imprisonment Rs. 2,000/- Six Months R.I. APPELLANT : RAKESH @ KALIA : Sentence under Section Sentence awarded Fine imposed Fine Default Sentence 102-B IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 10,000/- Two Years R.I. 302 r/w 109 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- Two Years R.I. 387 r/w 109 IPC Seven Years’ Imprisonment Rs. 2,000/- Six Months R.I. 450 IPC Ten Years’ R.I. Rs. 3,000/- One Year R.I. 3/25 Arms Act Three Years’ R.I. Rs. 1,000/- One Month R.I. 27 Arms Act Three Years’ R.I. Rs. 1,000/- One Month R.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Let us give a very brief factual matrix of case to understand entire matter in the right perspective. 3. That on 23.02.2015 complainant Kuldeep Singh (PW-2) lodged a report with the S.H.O., Police Station Bhadra, District Hanumangarh alleging, inter alia, that his cousin Shishram @ Shishpal @ Pappu owned a motorcycle workshop which is situated near bus stand in Bhadra town. The complainant was at the workshop with Shishram until 06:15 pm on that day. Afterwards, he returned to his village. At around 07:25 pm, Manoj Singh (PW- 5) phoned the complainant and informed him that three unknown miscreants had entered into the workshop, fired gun-shot at Shishram and fled away from the scene. Shishram was immediately taken to the Government hospital. Upon hearing this news, Kuldeep Singh and his brother Ashok immediately rushed to the hospital. The body of Shishram had sustained gun-shot injuries and he succumbed to the attack made by the assailants. 4. After receiving the said report, a formal FIR No.56/2015 was registered, investigation was commenced and after completion of the investigation, the challan was filed against the appellants along with co-accused Virendra @ Bindra @ Dhangar and Sajjid Khan. 5. The body of Shishram had sustained gun-shot injuries and he succumbed to the attack made by the assailants. 4. After receiving the said report, a formal FIR No.56/2015 was registered, investigation was commenced and after completion of the investigation, the challan was filed against the appellants along with co-accused Virendra @ Bindra @ Dhangar and Sajjid Khan. 5. After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, appellants were put on trial. During the trial, learned Court determined co-accused Virendra @ Bindra @ Dhangar and Sajjid Khan to be juvenile, therefore, their case was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh for further trial. 6. Appellant Sajjan @ Kalla stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 386 read with 109 and 302 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant Rakesh @ Kalia stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 386, 450, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/25 & 27 of the Arms Act. Both the appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 7. To establish guilt of the appellants, prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses and also got exhibited different documents and articles during the trial. 8. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Code Procedure, both the appellants denied all the allegations levelled against them appearing in the evidence of prosecution. They pleaded innocence and false implication. No oral evidence was produced by any of the appellant in their defence although some documents were exhibited. 9. Upon analysis of the evidence, learned trial Judge vide judgment dated 08.08.2018 convicted and sentenced both the appellants as mentioned aforesaid. 10. Mr. J.S. Choudhary, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants strongly contended that impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is against law and facts which is not sustainable in the eye of the law and deserves to be set aside as learned trial Judge has erred in convicting and sentencing both the appellants. He argued that conviction of the appellants as recorded by the learned Trial Court is based purely upon conjectures and surmises which suffers from lacunae and perversity. He further submitted that the prosecution has suppressed true story and merely on basis of evidence of interested witnesses, the judgment of conviction has been passed without looking into other material available on record. He further submitted that the prosecution has suppressed true story and merely on basis of evidence of interested witnesses, the judgment of conviction has been passed without looking into other material available on record. The actual manner in which the occurrence took place has neither been stated by the witnesses nor the investigating officer has investigated into. Lastly, it is argued that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He therefore, urged that under such circumstances, conviction and sentence of the appellants cannot be sustained and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court should be set aside and the appellants be acquitted. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has relied upon the following decisions:- 1. Kehar Singh & Ors. Vs. Delhi Administration, 1988 AIR (SC) 1883 2. Basheera Begam Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim, 2020 Cr.L.R. (SC) 436 3. State of Maharashtra Vs. Damu Gopi Nath, 2000 AIR (SC) 1691 4. Hansraj Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2014 (1) Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 1 5. Mohan Singh Parihar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2013 O Supreme (Raj.) 1319 11. On the contrary, Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State took us through the entire evidence and argued that all the evidence and links relied upon by the prosecution have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has been able to prove the fact of criminal conspiracy, abatement, motive and recoveries beyond reasonable doubt. From the evidence led by the prosecution, it can safely be inferred that it were the appellants and his co-accused only, who have murdered the deceased Shishram. After appreciating all the material and evidence available on record against the appellants, the learned Trial Court was right in convicting and sentencing the appellants. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal. 12. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment. We have also thoroughly re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 13. The first and foremost contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants is that investigating officer has implicated appellant Sajjan @ Kalla by falsely implanting an alleged threat letter (EXP-109) only to ensure a successful investigation. The evidence regarding discovery and recovery of threat letter (EXP-109) is totally unreliable and tainted. 13. The first and foremost contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants is that investigating officer has implicated appellant Sajjan @ Kalla by falsely implanting an alleged threat letter (EXP-109) only to ensure a successful investigation. The evidence regarding discovery and recovery of threat letter (EXP-109) is totally unreliable and tainted. The prosecution case with regard to said letter of threat to the deceased has not been found to be proved. 14. He further contended that appellant Sajjan @ Kalla never authored said threatening letter and no such letter was sent or delivered to deceased Shishram. He denied involvement of the appellants in any illicit demand of money from the deceased citing that threat letter does not bear handwriting of the appellant Sajjan @ Kalla. 15. He strongly argued that police has failed to preserve the scene of crime. Lack of preservation of crime scene eliminates any possibility of recovering the purported threatening letter from the workshop of the deceased, instead, he claimed it to be fabricated and spurious recovery which creates serious doubt to the case of the prosecution. 16. He further argued that immediate inspection of the crime scene and the preparation of memo thereof by the investigating officer were not followed during the investigation. This raises serious questions about the integrity of the investigation. 17. It is further argued that prosecution has failed to prove the fact that specimen hand-writing of appellant Sajjan @ Kalla was taken according to the law. 18. Lastly, it is argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt resulting into illegal conviction of the appellants. 19. Conversely, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently contended that case of the prosecution is well corroborated by depositions of witnesses and entire evidence supports guilt of the appellants. There is no material, irregularity or any inconsistency in evidence to discredit its version, therefore, the judgment of learned Trial Court warrants no interference. 20. In light of above arguments perusal of record shows that case of the prosecution against appellant Sajjan @ Kalla was based upon the theory of conspiracy and abatement. Active participation in assaulting the deceased was alleged against other appellant Rakesh @ Kalia, besides being part of the criminal conspiracy. 20. In light of above arguments perusal of record shows that case of the prosecution against appellant Sajjan @ Kalla was based upon the theory of conspiracy and abatement. Active participation in assaulting the deceased was alleged against other appellant Rakesh @ Kalia, besides being part of the criminal conspiracy. It is accordingly that the charge under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code was also framed against both the appellants and the charge of Section 109 read with principal offences were framed against the appellant Sajjan @ Kalla, besides other charges. 21. The motive for the offence is said to be illegal demand of Rs.50 Lakhs. The case of prosecution in this regard was that accused Sajjan @ Kalla, Rakesh @ Kalia, Virendra @ Bindra @ Dhangar and Sajjid Khan allegedly conspire collectively to commit murder of Shishram. Accused Sajjan @ Kalla, desiring to extort Rs. 50,00,000/- from deceased Shishram incited other three co-accused to deliver alleged threatening letter (EXP-109) to Shishram. This threatening communication was delivered to deceased Shishram by co-accused. Upon Shishram’s failure to meet monetary demand, accused Sajjan @ Kalla allegedly instigated his associates to kill Shishram. Consequently, his all the three associates namely Rakesh @ Kalia, Virendra @ Bindra @ Dhangar and Sajjid Khan went to the workshop of Shishram where they proceeded to shoot Shishram and killed him. As per case of the prosecution, in fact, conspiracy was hatched in minds of all the four accused. They hit upon the idea of compelling the Shishram to part with a large sum of money i.e., Rs.50,00,000/- and in case he refused, to do away with him. The entire edifice of case of the prosecution against appellant Sajjan @ Kalla was built upon the alleged criminal conspiracy and abatement which involved co-appellant Rakesh also. As stated earlier, active participation was also alleged against co-appellant Rakesh. Admittedly appellant Sajjan @ Kalla was lodged in Hisar Jail on the day of the occurrence of alleged crime. 22. At the outset, we would like to deal with the circumstances of recovery of threat letter (EXP-109) which was allegedly authored by appellant Sajjan @ Kalla and sent to the deceased Shishram. This threatening letter is main link in the chain of evidence. Appellant Sajjan @ Kalla has been implicated based upon said threatening letter which was said to have been recovered from the workshop of Shishram through recovery memo (EXP-6). This threatening letter is main link in the chain of evidence. Appellant Sajjan @ Kalla has been implicated based upon said threatening letter which was said to have been recovered from the workshop of Shishram through recovery memo (EXP-6). 23. According to the prosecution, accused Sajjan @ Kalla demanded Rs. 50,00,000/- from the deceased Shishram and threatened him with dire consequences if the demand was not met. It is alleged that murder of Shishram occurred due to non-fulfillment of this demand. The threat letter said to have been sent by accused Sajjan @ Kalla to deceased is a key piece of evidence. 24. The contents of the threat letter (EXP-109) are as follows:- ^^esjs vkneh dks 50 yk[k :0 ns nsuk ojuk vatke cqjk gksxk A lTtu @ dkyk ckylefUn;k^^ 25. The record of the case reveals that incident occurred on 23.02.2015 at around 07:15 pm, while the threat letter was recovered from the scene of occurrence on 25.02.2015 at 09:15 am i.e. on third day of the incident which is an admitted fact. 26. Now, credibility of claim of prosecution regarding discovery and recovery of threat letter from the place of occurrence is considered. Complainant Kuldeep Singh (PW-2) is not just a family member of the deceased but also used to work with the deceased in his workshop handling computer related work. He, in his deposition before the trial Court stated that:- “I used to perform computer related tasks at the workshop…... Shishram is my cousin…... Besides my computer, there were no other computers in the workshop…... I used to keep accounting diaries and papers at the computer counter…… I personally monitor and kept track of all the accounting diaries and papers at my computer counter…... I never informed Shishram about receiving of or having a threatening letter demanding Rs.50 Lakhs…... I had never come across any threatening letter demanding Rs.50 lakhs amongst papers kept at the counter……” 27. In view of above statement of Kuldeep Singh (PW-2), the entire story of discovery and recovery of threat letter from workshop of the deceased is highly doubtful and not worthy of reliance. The conduct of deceased in keeping silent from the alleged threat letter also renders recovery of such threat letter highly improbable. In view of above statement of Kuldeep Singh (PW-2), the entire story of discovery and recovery of threat letter from workshop of the deceased is highly doubtful and not worthy of reliance. The conduct of deceased in keeping silent from the alleged threat letter also renders recovery of such threat letter highly improbable. It is highly unusual and unlikely for Kuldeep Singh (PW-2), the computer operator of workshop, to have no knowledge of such threat letter kept in his computer counter, if it actually existed. Kuldeep Singh is expected to be aware of all the documents kept in drawer of the computer counter. 28. It is implausible for a common human being that after receiving a death threat, he would refrain from discussing it or disclosing it to his family members and colleague Kuldeep Singh, who was also his family member. Equally improbable is the absence of fear following such a threat or the failure to communicate absence of such a fear to the family members. 29. On an analysis of deposition of Investigating Officer Gopal Singh Dhaka (PW-14) as well as site inspection memo (EXP-7), it is revealed that I.O. inspected scene of crime on the third day of the incident and alleged threat letter was purported to have been recovered during site inspection from a drawer of computer counter situated in the workshop. This Court is required to determine whether prosecution has been able to prove the delay in inspecting crime scene, in a reasonable and justified manner and also the fact whether recovery of alleged threat letter has been established beyond reasonable doubt or not. The investigating officer, in his statement, has not provided any reason for the delay in inspecting scene of crime even though he had ample time and opportunity to do so in the evening of the incident itself. Had the alleged threat letter been recovered on day of the incident itself, there would have been no reason to doubt existence of said threat letter and authenticity of its recovery. 30. Immediate inspection of crime scene is an essential part of the investigation specially in cases like murder. It is important piece of evidence in a case. The police investigation seems biased in favour of the prosecution in this regard. Despite reaching scene of crime immediately after the incident, investigating officer did not inspect and examine crime scene promptly. 30. Immediate inspection of crime scene is an essential part of the investigation specially in cases like murder. It is important piece of evidence in a case. The police investigation seems biased in favour of the prosecution in this regard. Despite reaching scene of crime immediately after the incident, investigating officer did not inspect and examine crime scene promptly. Instead, he postponed inspection to the third day. This delay could have provided an opportunity for prosecution to fabricate false evidence at crime scene. This fact significantly casts doubt on credibility of existence as well as recovery of threat letter from workshop of the deceased. 31. The prosecution is bound to satisfactorily explain the delay in preparing memo of crime scene in which it has utterly failed which outweighs and diminishes the value and credibility of evidence produced by prosecution including deposition of the witnesses of seizure memo of alleged threat letter and memo of inspection of crime scene. The entire story of recovery of threat letter from workshop of deceased is highly doubtful and not worthy of reliance. 32. Equally important is the fact that whether the investigating officer preserved the scene of crime. In this context, the investigating officer deposed that:- “I arrived at the scene of crime at 07:10 in the evening…... The workshop was open at that time…... I secured the workshop in its present state and stationed policemen there for security of place of occurrence…... I don’t recall which police personnel was deputed to security duty…... The Roznamcha Diary of that day in respect of such deployment has not been produced on the record…... No-one from neighbourhood was present while inspecting place of occurrence…... The threat letter does not contain name of the deceased or any of his relatives…...” 33. Based upon these statements of investigating officer, it cannot be considered proved beyond reasonable doubt that place of occurrence was preserved by the investigating officer prior to its inspection. No memo was prepared by the investigating officer, mentioning fact of preservation of crime scene and no entry in the Roznamcha regarding this aspect was produced. The personnel who guarded place of occurrence has also not been produced as witness during the trial and there is no document or memo available on record which prove sealing and un-sealing of the workshop of the deceased. 34. The personnel who guarded place of occurrence has also not been produced as witness during the trial and there is no document or memo available on record which prove sealing and un-sealing of the workshop of the deceased. 34. In such circumstances, it cannot be considered proved that place of occurrence remained intact and preserved for two nights till it was inspected by investigating officer on the third day of the occurrence. Since crime scene did not remain intact and preserved, therefore, there was no purpose in inspecting crime scene on third day of incidence by investigating officer. It has a significant adverse impact upon case of the prosecution. It is a crucial and costly lapse on the part of prosecution. This failure has led to elimination of evidence, weakening the case of the prosecution and raising serious doubts about recovery of the alleged threat letter. Neglecting the proper preservation of scene of crime has severe legal consequences which undermines credibility of evidence produced by prosecution. It has also led to introduction of embellishments, colored version and concocted story. 35. PW-23 is Jeetu Singh who was Executive Magistrate of area at the relevant time working as Tehsildar. The testimony of this witness pertains to establishing handwriting of threat letter (EXP-109). According to prosecution, specimen handwriting (EXP-89 to 103) of accused Sajjan @ Kalla has been obtained by the police before this Executive Magistrate. The obtained specimen handwriting were sent to the FSL for comparison and as per the FSL report, handwriting of threat letter matched with the specimen hand writing of accused Sajjan @ Kalla. 36. Jeetu Singh (PW-23) admitted in his deposition that before obtaining specimen handwriting, he did not get the accused Sajjan @ Kalla identified by the policemen or Investigating Officer who produced him. He did not obtain signature of Investigating Officer on sheets of specimen handwriting. 37. In view of above statements of Executive Magistrate, it is not proved that who produced accused Sajjan @ Kalla before him to undertake proceedings of taking specimen handwriting. It is also not proved that who recognized or identified accused Sajjan @ Kalla. It is also not proved that did the investigating officer recognize accused before the Executive Magistrate. The Executive Magistrate did not get signature of investigating officer on various sheets of specimen handwriting to mark production of accused by investigating officer before Executive Magistrate. It is also not proved that who recognized or identified accused Sajjan @ Kalla. It is also not proved that did the investigating officer recognize accused before the Executive Magistrate. The Executive Magistrate did not get signature of investigating officer on various sheets of specimen handwriting to mark production of accused by investigating officer before Executive Magistrate. The prosecution has also failed to prove any forwarding letter issued by Executive Magistrate, outlining actions undertaken by him while taking specimen handwriting. Specimen handwriting (EXP-89 to 103) also lacks any indication of fact that who produced the accused before executive Magistrate. 38. In such circumstances, prosecution has miserably failed to establish that threat letter was in the handwriting of accused Sajjan @ Kalla. We, therefore, hold that specimen handwriting of appellant Sajjan @ Kalla allegedly obtained during the investigation is liable to be discarded. Therefore, prosecution has miserably failed to establish that threat letter was in hand-writing of accused Sajjan @ Kalla. The view taken by learned Trial Court is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. 39. The another link evidence brought on record by prosecution against appellant Sajjan @ kalla is discovery and recovery of a slip of paper (EXP-111) from him while he was in custody in Hisar Jail. This slip of paper contains list of various telephone numbers including that of co-accused. In this regard, the case of prosecution was that when accused Sajjan @ kalla was apprehended by investigating officer from Hisar Jail on 08.05.2015 vide arrest memo (EXP-17), a slip of paper was discovered and recovered during his personal search from his pocket. This piece of evidence aims to establish pre-existing connections amongst accused, telephone communications and conversations amongst co-accused and consequently, existence of criminal conspiracy. 40. The defence argued that it was impossible for accused Sajjan @ Kalla to possess such slip of paper while in jail and alleges that police subjected him to coercive measures, forcing him to write aforementioned slip at the police station. After going through the deposition of both investigating officers Gopal Singh (PW-14) and Mahesh Kumar (PW-20), it is proved that no jail staff of Hisar testified as witnesses during arrest and search of accused Sajjan @ kalla. It was impossible for accused Sajjan to retain any documents while in jail as such items are typically confiscated by jail authorities upon entry. It was impossible for accused Sajjan to retain any documents while in jail as such items are typically confiscated by jail authorities upon entry. Additionally, prosecution has failed to establish evidence indicating that accused Sajjan @ Kalla had possession of such a slip of paper while entering the jail. 41. It is also revealed that the slip in question appears to be of a fresh and unwrinkled paper, suggesting that it was not carried in pocket for long. There has not been any investigation regarding the telephone numbers listed in the slip. Neither the SIM details of those numbers have been obtained nor their CDR were documented. In this scenario, reliability of recovery of said slip lacks sufficient, cogent and reliable evidence. Consequently, inferring a conspiracy among the accused based upon said slip of telephone numbers becomes unfounded. 42. The other piece of evidence relied on for linking accused Sajjan @ Kalla to the present incident is EXP-54 which records details of his stay in Hisar Jail. This document is produced by prosecution in an attempt to establish that all the accused were in contact with each other before and after the incident. Prosecution contended that details of this document should be considered as an evidence of criminal conspiracy among them. In view of this Court, said argument of prosecution has no force. Tough, this document details the frequency of meetings between accused Sajjan @ Kalla and all other co-accused, however, (EXP-54) fails to assist case of the prosecution for several reasons. Primarily, it is not original record of Jail but rather a summary of it. Additionally, Jail Officer responsible for preparation of this summary was not produced in evidence, rendering (EXP-54) unproved according to the law. Consequently, this document also does not substantiate case of the prosecution in any manner. 43. Co-appellant Rakesh @ Kalia was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 386, 450 and 302 of IPC and Sections 3/25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Besides other charges, he was also considered as an integral part of criminal conspiracy. As per case of prosecution, he was also an accused of direct involvement in alleged incident. As seen earlier, prosecution has substantially failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that appellants were collectively engaged in any criminal conspiracy in the present case. 44. Besides other charges, he was also considered as an integral part of criminal conspiracy. As per case of prosecution, he was also an accused of direct involvement in alleged incident. As seen earlier, prosecution has substantially failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that appellants were collectively engaged in any criminal conspiracy in the present case. 44. Now, so far as direct involvement of appellant Rakesh @ kalia in the present incident is concerned, Banwari Lal (PW-6) played a crucial role in identifying the said accused. He, in his deposition stated that no incident of present case was occurred before him. He did not witness occurrence of present FIR. He, along with Mahendra (PW-1) did not witness Shishram being shot by three unidentified individuals on 23.02.2015. 45. Above testimony of Banwari Lal failed to support case of the prosecution concerning identification of co-appellant Rakesh @ kalia on the spot as well as during test identification parade. Given the doubts raised from statements of Banwari Lal (PW-6), the credibility of other alleged eye-witness Mahendra (PW-1) also comes under question, making his testimony also unreliable. Hence, involvement of co-appellant Rakesh @ Kalia in the incident remained unsubstantiated. 46. Furthermore, all supporting evidence mentioned above have been found to be unreliable. Consequently, case of prosecution cannot be considered established beyond reasonable doubt against co-appellant Rakesh also. 47. It is, therefore, clear that claim of the police that Shishram @ Shishpal @ Pappu was murdered by both the appellants in furtherance of criminal conspiracy and abatement due to his failure to fulfill accused’s demand of money is highly doubtful. It raises strong suspicion on its veracity and the learned Trial Court has wrongly relied upon the recovery of threat letter from the place of occurrence and matching of hand-writing of threat letter with the specimen hand-writing of accused Sajjan @ Kalla. 48. A criminal conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy, owing to which, direct evidence is difficult to obtain. The offence can therefore be proved, either by adducing circumstantial evidence, or by way of necessary implication. However, in the event that the link evidence is incomplete or vague, it becomes necessary for the prosecution to provide adequate proof regarding the meeting of minds, which is essential in order to hatch a criminal conspiracy, by adducing substantive evidence in court. The offence can therefore be proved, either by adducing circumstantial evidence, or by way of necessary implication. However, in the event that the link evidence is incomplete or vague, it becomes necessary for the prosecution to provide adequate proof regarding the meeting of minds, which is essential in order to hatch a criminal conspiracy, by adducing substantive evidence in court. Furthermore, in order to constitute the offence of conspiracy, it is not necessary that the person involved has knowledge of all the stages of action. In fact, mere knowledge of the main object/purpose of conspiracy, would warrant the attraction of relevant penal provisions. Thus, an agreement between two persons to do, or to cause an illegal act, is the basic requirement of the offence of conspiracy under the penal statute. 49. In this case once the prosecution case relating to conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC failed, reliance placed on Section 109 of the IPC, which contemplates a conspiracy and something more would have no legs to stand on. Leave alone any illegal act or omission based on a conspiracy, no conspiracy itself is proved. Therefore, Section 109 of the IPC can have no play. 50. The Trial Court merely accepted the evidence placed before it by the prosecution. Mere production of the evidence would not lead to conviction. It is its quality and reliability that matters. Thus, we are of the considered view the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence available on record properly. Existence of strong suspicion can never lead to a conviction. As we find that there is no credible evidence to come to the conclusion that it were the appellants who committed the offence, we are inclined to set aside the conviction rendered by the Trial Court, especially when we are dealing with a case of criminal conspiracy and abatement. 51. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No.25 of 2015 (CIS No.25/2015) titled as “State of Rajasthan Vs. Sajjan @ Kalla & Ors.” vide judgment and order dated 08.08.2018 rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh are set aside and the present criminal appeal is allowed. The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Both the appellants are in custody, they be released henceforth, if not required in any other case. 52. Sajjan @ Kalla & Ors.” vide judgment and order dated 08.08.2018 rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh are set aside and the present criminal appeal is allowed. The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Both the appellants are in custody, they be released henceforth, if not required in any other case. 52. A copy of the order be sent to the learned Trial Court and the Jail concerned immediately for compliance.