This case is on the conspiracy hatched, on the requirements of proving conspiracy. The requirements are already quoted by this Court and so, more discussion is not necessary. The learned APP placed reliance on the case of Bharat Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. [AIR 1999 (SC) 717] . In that case, there was possibility that the shooting by using fre arm was not done from the close range. In that case, guns were said to be used, but there were no circumstances like scorching, blackening and tattooing. There is no need to use these observations in view of the nature of weapons used in the present matter and nature of direct evidence available. In the case of Kali Prasad Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [2019 (6) Scale 670] , there were gun shots, but clothes like jacket were on the person of deceased and due to that it was held that the absence of blackening of skin was not a circumstance which could have crated doubt about the evidence of witnesses. In the case reported as Paramjit and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2000 (SC) 2038] , there was use of double barrel gun. In this case, the Apex Court has laid down that when one trustworthy witness is examined, the circumstance of non examination of other possible eye witness cannot be considered against the prosecution and that circumstance can be ignored.
