JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Though these two special leave petitions are completely unconnected but they present one common feature and as such we propose to deal with these two special leave petitions by this common Judgment.

2. Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.________ (D.No.20446 of 2018) of 2018 challenges the decision dated 30.08.2013 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissing Criminal Appeal No.986 of 2005 preferred by the petitioner and thereby affirming his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life. The prosecution principally relied on the testimony of two eye witnesses, namely, PWs 3 and 5 whose evidence was found by the High Court to be worthy of reliance and completely unblemished. The decision rendered by the High Court, in our view, does not call for interference and as such we dismiss this special leave petition.

3. In Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No._______ (Diary No.21026 of 2018) of 2018 the decision dated 17.02.2014 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.850 of 2009 is under challenge. The High Court by its judgment and order affirmed the conviction of the pe