1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 7th August, 1982. The present appeal was preferred in the year 1983 but has remained pending so far have been taken up for disposal as part of a concerted effort to take up old matters.

2. The respondent-Ashok Kumar was accused of the offence of murder of one Neeraj. As per the prosecution case, Neeraj who had lent money to the respondent had demanded his money back which caused a quarrel and during this quarrel respondent took out a knife from right side pocket of his pant and gave a blow on the left thigh/abdomen ofNeeraj. The spot was Mata Wali Gali near Katra Khushal Rai in Chandni Chowk. The time was about 8.00 pm. The prosecution named two other persons, namely Chhotey and Ravinder who were attributed roles of securing victim when the knife blow was given by the respondent. All the three accused' were acquitted by the impugned judgment. On the appeal being preferred by the State, the same was admitted qua the present respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the parties have taken us through the record of the case as well as through the impugned judgment. The prosecution relied upon three eye witnesses who had produced as PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5. PW-3 deposes that he reached the spot after the incident had happened and the crowd had gathered there. He and Bishan Sarup Pandey took the injured in a cycle rikshaw to the Irwin Hospital. The injured was unconscious and when he was brought to the hospital he was declared dead. Bishan Sarup Pandey is PW-5 who is seller of ready made garments deposes that he heard the altercation between the respondent and the deceased from some distance. as he happened to be there on his way back home with bundles of clothes with . him and his employee Ved Parkash. He says that as he approached the spot, he heard the deceased demanding money from the respondent and the respondent replied to the deceased that he would return the money right then and took out a knife and gave the blow. This witness also claims to have raised an alarm and, thereafter, handed over the bundle of clothes to Ved Parkash with instructions to proceed to the god own and lifted the deceased and walked about 30 paces when he met PW-3 and together they brought the deceased to the J.P.N. Hospital. Ved Parkash is PW-2. He corroborates PW-5 and says that while Bishan Sarup Pandey and Pradeep Kumar took the injured to the hospital he left for the godown.

4. Despite the two eye witnesses, the case ended in an acquittal as the trial court disbelieved both Bishan Sarup Pandey and Ved Parkash Bishan Sarup Pandey was himself involved in several cases and there were occasions when he was taken in custody by the police and was prosecuted. In his cross examination he admits that he was challaned three or four times by P.S. Kotwali and that he had been kept in police lock up in some of those cases. He further says that during Emergency days, he remained in the police custody for about seven days although he does not know for what offence he had been arrested. He avoids the suggestion that he was arrested' on account of being a habitual offender. He says that the place where he sells his goods is at a distance of two minutes walk from P .S. Kotwali but he denies the suggestion that the police officers of P.S. Kotwali keeps troubling him as he sells his goods on the pavement and that in order to save himself from the harassment of the police he has agreed to become a witness for them.

He expresses ignorance whether he was a prosecution witness in another case of the same police station relating to the robbery against Pramod Kumar and Satish Kumar. On account of such antecedents of witness Bishan Sarup Pandey, the trial court declined to give any credence to his testimony.

5. Another reason for declining to award credence to the testimony of this witness is the failure of the police to obtain the shirt of the witness. The police had taken in