The reliability of eyewitness testimony and the admissibility of evidence based on forensic examination.

( 1 ) THE present appeal has been filed by Dharamvir and sunil, hereinafter described as the appellants, directed against the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 29th january, 2000 and 31st January, 2000 respectively. The learned Trial Court had held both the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Dharamvir was further held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Accordingly both the appellants, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the indian Penal Code were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. In default of payment of fine they were to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. Dharamvir was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under the Arms Act referred to above and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. In default of payment of fine he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The sentences awarded were to run concurrently.

( 2 ) IN brief the facts of the prosecution case can be delineated to be that Jai Kishan deceased is the brother of Rajesh. They were living at Sultanpuri. Deceased Jai kishan used to sell eggs in a kokha and was on visiting terms with an enunch mumtaz. Mumtaz lived in E-Block, Sultan Puri. The father of Rajesh had advised jai Kishan to severe his relationship with Mumtaz and he had stopped going to mumtaz. This had annoyed Mumtaz. One Dharamvir, appellant was also visiting mumtaz. Mumtaz had instigated Dharamvir against his brother Jai Kishan. On 22nd May, 1996 at about 7. 00 p. m. Dharamvir had come to the house of Rajesh and told Jai Kishan deceased in a threatening tone as to why he was not visiting Mumtaz. He wanted to take Jai Kishan along with him but at the advice of Rajesh he did not accompany him.

( 3 ) ON 23rd May, 1996 when Rajesh is stated to have got up in the morning he found that his brother Dharamvir was not present in his room, his room was locked. He was suspicious and was searching for his brother. He went to the house of mumtaz. It was about 7. 00 a. m. when he found his brother in the house of Mumtaz. Ill addition to that both the appellants Dharamvir and Sunil were also there. They were engaged in some arguments. He had told his deceased brother to come back home. Mumtaz told Rajesh that his brother would be sent back. Rajesh started coming back home. When he reached the park of A Block he heard the voice of his brother and saw his brother running from the house of Mumtaz. Dharamvir and sunil were chasing him. Dharamvir had an open knife in his hand. When Jai Kishan reached near A Block appellant Sunil caught hold of him and Dharamvir gave him knife blows. Rajesh had raised the alarm bachao-Bachao (save save ). In the meantime Vinod son of Piary Lal and some other persons reached there. Sunil and dharamvir ran away. Rajesh along with Vinod took his brother to the hospital where his brother was declared to have been brought dead. In his complaining statement he pointed that Mumtaz, Dharamvir and Sunil in furtherance of their common intention have attacked his brother Jai Kishan.

( 4 ) ON basis of this complaining statement Sub-Inspector Bhoop Singh had made his endorsement and formal First Information Report was recorded. The officer incharge of the police station had inspected the place of occurrence and lilted the blood stained earth and earth control from the spot. They were converted into different sealed parcels in accordance with the procedure and taken into possession. Post-mortem on the person of the deceased Jai Kishan was conducted and it was reported that death was due to haemorrhage as a result of stab injuries. All the injuries were found to be ante mortem and injury on the left side of the chest was opined to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary co