The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent and credible eye witness testimony, as well as the corroboration of evidence through the finding of human blood on the weapon and clothes of the accused.

Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.

The Appellants herein, who are the Original Accused, convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 Read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer R.I. for three months, by the Judgment dated 8th February, 2012 in Sessions Case No.13 of 2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dindoshi, Mumbai, by these Appeals challenge their conviction and sentence.

2. As all these three Appeals are arising out of one and same Judgment of the Trial Court, they are decided by this common Judgment. For the sake of convenience, the Appellants are referred to by their original nomenclature as "Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3".

3. Facts, as are necessary, for the decision of these Appeals may briefly be stated thus :

On 13th June, 2010, at about 7 p.m., when PW-9 API Mahendra Sawant was on duty as SHO at Kandivali Police Station along with PW-11 PI Laxman Chavan, he received the phone call from Bhagwati Hospital informing him that two injured persons were brought to the hospital and on arrival, they were declared as dead. On the receipt of this information, PW-9 API Sawant and PW-11 PI Chavan, along with staff, went to Bhagwati Hospital and made enquiry with PW-1 Ankit Gupta, who was present there. His statement was recorded in the hospital itself and from his statement, it was transpired that Accused No.1 Raunak had stabbed with the broken piece of glass, both, the injured Amit Rathod and Bablu Vishwakarma on account of some trifle incident of the teasing. Accused No.2 Salim and Accused No.3 Usman had facilitated the said assault by Accused No.2 Salim holding Amit, whereas, Accused No.3 Usman holding Bablu.

4. On this statement of PW-1 Ankit, which was treated as F.I.R., PW-9 API Mahendra Sawant registered C.R. No.185 of 2010 against all the three Accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code In the hospital itself, he prepared the Inquest Panchanama (Exhibits 48 and 49) and sent both the dead bodies for post mortem. Thereafter, along with PW-9 API Sawant, he went to the spot of incident and made the Scene of Offence Panchanama vide Exhibit-36. From the spot, in the presence of Panchas, the blood stained mud, simple mud and three broken pieces of glasses were seized. On the same day, PW-8 API Laxman Shinde arrested all the three Accused near Borivali Station and seized their clothes under Panchanama (Exhibit-46). On 14th June, 2010, all the three Accused were taken to Bhagwati Hospital for their medical examination. On that day, PW-11 PI Chavan also recorded the statements of two eye witnesses PW-4 Dinesh Rathod and PW-5 Sachin Rathod. On 17th June, 2010, he recorded the statement of another eye witness PW-7 Mahesh Rathod. On 26th June, 2010, he recorded the statement of PW-6 Sagar Rathod and some other witnesses. He also arranged to collect the blood samples and nail clippings of the Accused persons and then sent all the seized articles, along with the blood samples of the deceased and the Accused, to Chemical Analyzer. On the receipt of the Post Mortem Notes (Exhibits 51 and 52) and completion of investigation, he filed Charge- Sheet in the Court against the Accused.

5. On the case being committed to the Sessions Court, the Trial Court framed charge against the Accused vide Exhibit-2. On the charge being read over and explained to the Accused, they denied the guilt and claimed trial, raising the defence of denial.

6. In order to prove its case, the Prosecution has led the evidence of 11 witnesses. It consists of the evidence of PW-1 Ankit, the Informant, four eye witnesses, the Panchas, the Medical Officer and three Investigating Officers. Trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, accepted the same and convicted and sentenced the Appellants, as stated above.

7. This Judgment of the Trial Court is being challenged in this Appeal by the learned Counsels for the Appellants, whereas, support