ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The challenge in these appeals is against the judgment and order dated 28th January, 2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi passed in Criminal Appeal No. 458 of 1998 whereby the order of conviction of the accused appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) made by the learned trial Court has been upheld and they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The accused appellants have also been convicted for commission of offences punishable under Section 324/34 and 323/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and one month respectively.

3. The incident took place on 14th February, 1993. The trial lasted five years and the appeal against the order of conviction was filed sometime in the year 1998. The appeal dragged on for 16 years and was concluded by the impugned order on 28th January, 2014. In the meantime, for most of the period, the accused had remained on bail. The above facts have been noticed by the Court only for the purpose of perceiving how the system has moved and the need to devise ways and means of expeditious hearing of such matters.

4. The prosecution case centres round the evidence of PW-1 - Jagdish Lal, who is the uncle of the deceased; PW-2 - Kuldeep Raj, the father of the deceased and PW-5 - Chanchal, the mother of the deceased. Another alleged witness PW-16-Pawan Kumar, the cousin of the deceased has turned hostile. PW-2 - Kuldeep Raj and PW-5 - Chanchal had also been injured in the course of the incident. The defence insofar as the accused Sunita Sharma is based is based upon a plea of alibi. The said accused has set up the plea that on the relevant date i.e. 14th February, 1993 she was away in Jalandhar attending a marriage and it is only on 15th February, 1993, on getting the news of her husband's arrest in connection with the aforesaid incident, that she came back to Delhi. The defence has also examined DW-1-Surinder Kumar, uncle of the accused Sunita Sharma, DW-2-Raghunath, the father of accused Sunita Sharma and DW-3 Meenakshi Sharma, the daughter of accused Sunita Sharma, inter alia, to prove the plea of alibi set up by the accused Sunita Sharma.

5. We have considered the core of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, details of which have been mentioned above. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also read and considered the elaborate judgments prepared by the learned trial Court as well as by the High Court of Delhi.

6. The evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 clinches the issues insofar as the accused Sudhir Sharma is concerned. All the witnesses have been categorical and consistent in implicating the said accused with the fatal injury caused by a sharp weapon. The description of the weapon though has varied with the witnesses, the said variance, in our considered view, does not make any difference to the culpability of the accused Sudhir Sharma. The opinion of the doctor that the said weapon is not capable of causing the fatal injury also does not commend to us for acceptance; firstly, because it is an opinion, and secondly, in view of the clear and categorical oral evidence on record that the said accused had used a sharp weapon in the commission of the offence which fact is borne out by the evidence of the doctor who had conducted the postmortem and had testified as regards the injuries found on the body of the deceased. In view of the aforesaid evidence which is overwhelming in nature we cannot find any fault with the conviction of the accused Sudhir Sharma including the conviction recorded under Section 302 IPC. The punishment of imprisonment for life awarded appears to be just and proper and will not call for any interference.

7. Coming to the appeal filed by the accused Sunita Sharma we have considered the evidence of PW-1 - Jagdish Lal, PW-2 - Kuldeep Raj, and PW-5 - Chanchal with regard to the involvement