The judgment emphasizes the need for reliable and unimpeachable evidence to establish guilt in a criminal trial, highlighting the importance of close and severe scrutiny of witness testimony and the need for corroborating evidence before acting upon the testimony of a single witness.

MADAN B. LOKUR, J.

( 1 ) THESE are two appeals by a total of three Appellants directed against the judgment and order dated 14th March, 2002 passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 63/2001. By the impugned judgment and order, the Appellants were held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC) for committing the murder of Laxmi and for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC read with Section 34 thereof for attempting to murder Radhey Shyam. Subsequently, by an order dated 15th March, 2002 all the Appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in respect of the offence of murder and to undergo imprisonment of seven years for the offence of attempt to murder. A fine was also imposed in respect of both the convictions.

( 2 ) AT the outset one rather disturbing feature of the case may be mentioned: the main witness for the prosecution, that is, PW-12 Radhey Shyam was examined on 5th May, 1992 but his cross-examination was completed after a gap of seven years on 4th June, 1999. The Supreme Court has time and again required the expeditious conclusion of a trial but in this case a large part of the delay in disposal of the case has been due to the failure of the Appellants to cross-examine PW-12 Radhey Shyam. We would one again draw the attention of the sessions Judges to the decisions of the Supreme Court as well as the provision of Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Crpc) and hope and expect that such unreasonable delays are avoided.

( 3 ) WE have dealt with this issue in some detail in Sobaran Singh v. State, criminal Appeal No. 528 of 1998 (decided on 8th November, 2006) and do not think it necessary to repeat what we have said. We would, however, like to point out that a perusal of the order sheet of the trial court indicates some extremely frivolous grounds for granting an adjournment, namely, when the learned counsel for the accused was busy or not available. The adjournments led Radhey Shyam as well as other witnesses for the prosecution not to take the case quite seriously with the result that non-bailable warrants were issued for the arrest of inspector R. S. Nehra, PW-15, Inspector Babu Lal, PW-14 and even Radhey Shyam, pw-12.

( 4 ) ON 7th April, 1987, police station Kirti Nagar received information at about 2. 07 am that one lady had been murdered at C-196, Mansarovar Garden. On receipt of this information, three police officers Head Constable Charan Singh (PW-4), Constable Yaqoob Ali (PW-9) and Sub-Inspector Budh Ram (PW-13) went to the spot and found the corpse of a lady who was later identified as Laxmi wife of Radhey Shyam. While certain formalities were being completed at the spot, the officer in charge of the police station Inspector R. S. Nehra (PW-15) was informed, and when he was coming to the spot in his jeep, he met Radhey Shyam and brought him along to the scene of crime. Since Radhey Shyam had suffered some injuries, he was sent to a hospital for immediate treatment and after he returned from there, inquest proceedings were conducted and it transpired that three persons, that is, Shiv Singh, Shri Prakash and Raghubir Singh (all appellants) were accused of having murdered Laxmi and for having attempted to murder Radhey Shyam. As learned counsel for the Appellants put it, this is the first part of the case.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER, on 9th April, 1987 a post mortem was conducted on the body of Laxmi and several injuries were noted. The doctor who conducted the post mortem, Dr. L. T. Ramani entered the witness box as PW-10 and he gave an opinion that the injuries were ante mortem. One of the injuries was caused by a blunt weapon and others were caused by a sharp edged weapon. Two of the injuries caused by the sharp edged weapon were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

( 6 ) ON 11th March, 1987, the three Appellants " Shiv Singh,