1. In the chain of prolix decisions, which unfortunately have started to be penned by the Court of Sessions in Delhi, we find the impugned decision makes one more grand addition.

2. A simple issue has been dealt with, spanning 136 paragraphs and sweeping 85 pages. As many as 32 decisions, none of which is relevant, have been cited. We get an impression as if a pre-school student, who has been taught some nursery rhymes, is standing on the stage and reciting them one after the other.

3. Court decisions are not nursery rhymes and are not to be parroted. Before a decision can be cited as a precedent, it must be brought out that the situation so demands. If the intention of the learned Trial Judge was to impress the Appellate Court with the vast knowledge of case law possessed by him, we must confess, we are most unimpressed by the manner in which the said knowledge has been used.

4. The first issue which arose for consideration in the present case before the learned Trial Judge was whether the testimony of Anil Kumar PW-3, the brother of the deceased, who deposed that on 29.7.2004 his brother Sanjay left the house at around 10:30 AM to visit the appellant and was carrying with him Rs.9,000/- inasmuch as Sanjay’s license to deal as agent with the postal authorities had expired and he had to purchase some tickets from Raju who knew the co-accused Abhimanyu, the person who had to supply the tickets was trustworthy and what was the effect thereof.

5. Dead body of Sanjay was reported lying at a spot adjoining the railway track at Pratap Khand at 5:30 PM on 29.7.2004 when DD No.5A, Ex.PW-16/A was recorded.

6. As deposed to by the investigating officer to whom said DD was assigned for investigation, from the pocket of the deceased he recovered a diary Ex.P-9 which he seized vide memo Ex.PW-2/A which contained personal information and telephone numbers, one of which happened to be that of the brother of the deceased and hence the dead body could be identified as that of Sanjay by late night.

7. Appellant Raj Kumar @ Raju and co-accused Abhimanyu were apprehended the next day morning i.e. 30.7.2004. Needless to state, as is the usual claim of the police, both of them confessed to have committed the crime and pursuant to the disclosure statement(s) made by them they got recovered: (the appellant), from within his jhuggi he got recovered a sum of Rs.4,500/- in denomination of Rs.100/-, and within the said notes were found two counterfoils of bank deposit slips (Ex.P-2) showing deposits made on 23.3.2004 and 29.3.2004 in the saving account No.4884 maintained by Punjab & Sind Bank in the name of the deceased. The said recovery stands recorded in the memo Ex.PW-4/C. Likewise, Abhimanyu got recovered sum of Rs.3,000/- from his jhuggi and within the same was the counterfoil of the bank deposit slip Ex.P-1 showing deposit made by the deceased in the aforesaid account on 21.5.2004.

8. Raj Kumar additionally got recovered a shirt, a vest and a pant (all marked as Ex.P-6) from within his jhuggi, which were seized vide memo Ex.PW-4/B. He got recovered a hammer Ex.P-3 from near the place where dead body of Sanjay was detected a day prior as entered in the memo Ex.PW-4/D. He additionally got recovered a leather bag Ex.P-4 from near the scene of the crime as entered in the memo Ex.PW-4/K.

9. In respect of the recoveries two issues arose. Firstly whether the recoveries inspired confidence and secondly the effect thereof

10. Noting further the fact that the blood-stained exhibits i.e. the clothes recovered by the appellant as also the hammer have been opined vide FSL report Ex.PW-1/B to be stained with human blood of the same group as that of the deceased, meaning thereby the shirt, the vest and the pant which were recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement of the appellant and at his instance were found to be stained with human blood of the same group as that of the deceased and the hammer only with human blood.

11. Let us l