that a clear case of conspiracy is made out. At this stage, there is no prohibition to look into the statements of the co-accused. In addition, there are statements of witnesses which lend credence to the prosecution version. Moreover, the CDR and CCTV Footage also show the presence of the applicants with the assailants and the meetings amongst them which preceded the actual assault. Therefore, the applicants do not deserve the exercise of discretion. 10) To begin with, it is necessary to note that there is strong prima facie material to show that the first informant was assaulted by employing hirelings. Prima facie, it does not appear that the coaccused – assailants had any cause or motive to rake up quarrel with, and mount assault on, the first informant. It is in this context, the charge of conspiracy deserves to be appreciated. It is trite conspiracy is hatched in secrecy. Direct evidence of conspiracy is seldom available. It is on the basis of the attendant circumstances, acts, omissions and utterances of the alleged coconspirators inference of conspiracy is required to be drawn. 11) In the case at hand, the prosecution undoubtedly banks upon the disclosure statement of Ashok Kharat to press into
