IMPORTANT POINT
For delayed examination of witness, unless investigating officer is categorically asked as to why there was delay, defence cannot gain any advantage therefrom.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-The tribe of roadside Romeos and eve teasers is fast increasing and their insane infatuations of grave depravity condescend to such condemnable proportions causing serious onslaught on the decency and sanctity of public life. Innocent women are the victims, and the fate of good Samaritans like Pravin Pathak (hereinafter referred to as the deceased ) is untimely departure from this earth. Gone are the days when people used to wish that the tribe of good Samaritans like Abu Ben Adhem would increase. On 30.9.1991, deceased was allegedly stabbed to death by appellants Banti@ Guddu and Teekaram (hereinafter referred to as the accused by their respective names).

2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

The occurrence took place in the street of Nagar Nigam Dholi Buwa Ka Pul on 30.9.1991 at 9.15 p.m. For that complainant Kamal Pathak (PW-1) lodged complaint in Janakganj police station on the same day at about 10.10 p.m. in which it was stated that, at the time of occurrence the complainant and Laxuman Das (DW-1) were coming from market. At that time they heard the sound of altercation. They saw that accused Banti@ Guddu and Teekaram were assaulting deceased with knives; they with the intention to kill were assaulting on his face, chest, stomach and thigh as a result of which blood was oozing from injuries. Deceased fell down after crying and became senseless. The accused persons after assaulting ran away, towards Dholibuwa. He and Laxuman took Pravin on two wheeler to Hospital. Then on the way, they met Diwan (police constable) and with his help they took deceased to hospital and in the hospital doctor declared Pravin dead.

3. The reason of this occurrence was that the accused persons used to move in the locality and were teasing the girls and due to this just about 4-5 days previous of this incident, deceased Pravin had beaten the accused persons near Madhav College and the accused persons became inimical towards him and due to this they committed the murder of Pravin. On the basis of complaint, Janakganj Police Station, registered Crime No. 303/91 under Section 302/34 IPC. Spot map was prepared. Panchnama of dead body was prepared and post mortem of dead body done. Cause of death was found to be blood haemorrhage and heart attack due to multiple injuries. Blood-stained soil and footwear of deceased was seized from the place of occurrence. Accused persons were arrested on 2.10.1991 and their statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short the Evidence Act ) was recorded on same day and on the basis of their disclosure statement, weapons of assault were recovered from their possession. All the seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar for chemical examination where from report received. After investigation challan was filed and the case was committed on 6.1.1992 to the Sessions Court for trial.

4. The accused persons pleaded innocence and false implication. They pleaded that complainant Kamal Pathak (PW-1) is brother of the deceased and witness Trilokinath (PW-2) is a friend of the deceased, and they have with mala fide intent implicated them. They examined one Laxuman Das (DW-1) to contend that the so called eye-witnesses (PWs 1 and 2) could not have witnessed the occurrence as claimed and, therefore, they are entitled to acquittal.

5. Learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior found the accused appellants guilty and convicted each one of them for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the IPC ) and sentenced each to undergo imprisonment for life. In appeal, Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Bench at Jabalpur confirmed the conviction and the sentence. The two appeals are directed against the said judgment.

6. In support of the appeals, Dr. T.N. Singh, learned senior counsel submitted that the approach of the trial Court and the High Court is erroneous and contrary to law. It was pleaded that