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 carryin