The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's emphasis on the credibility of the prosecution's evidence, including ocular, circumstantial, and medical evidence, in establishing the guilt of the accused individuals.

Reva Khetrapal, J.

1. Challenge in the aforesaid four appeals is to the conviction of the Appellants for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, awarding an imprisonment for life to all the four Appellants with the fine of Rs.2,000/-each, in default three months simple imprisonment each.

2. The facts germane to the case of the prosecution are as follows. The first informant was Vikas, the brother of the deceased Rajesh. The version of PW 3 Vikas is that he has a piggery farm. Prior to the incident two to four times his pigs were stolen but the matter was not reported to the police. On the day of the incident i.e. on 6.5.2002, he and his brother Rajesh had gone to the vicinity of Jindpur Godown at about 9.00 p.m. to take back their pigs, which happened to be grazing there at that time. W hen they were sitting on the stairs of a shop and were watching their pigs, at about 9.30 p.m., a white coloured Maruti Van came from the G.T. Road and stopped near the pigs. There were four persons in the van. They alighted from the van and started catching their pigs. Seeing this, Rajesh followed those four boys. He (Vikas) was behind Rajesh. Two of the boys were accused Gulab from their Village viz, Village Mukhmelpur and Anil, resident of Village Bakoli, both of whom used to work at their shop. Gulab had left their shop about one or one and a half year before the incident. Anil of Village Bakoli had left about 15-20 days before the incident. The name of the third accused was Anil Kumar, son of Hukum, who was also a resident of village Mukhmelpur. The fourth accused Parveen also resided in their village. Accused Anil of Village Bakoli and accused Parveen Kumar resident of their Village caught hold of his brother Rajesh. Accused Anil of Village Bakoli exhorted: “Aaj inka kaam tamam kar dete hai” while accused Gulab Singh stabbed 6-7 times on the face and head of his brother with a knife, and accused Anil of their Village gave 3-4 danda blows on the head of his brother Rajesh. When he tried to save his brother, Anil @ Boota of their village exhorted “Iska bhi kaam tamam kar do”. Due to their fear, he ran from there to save himself; he ran towards his village. Accused persons chased him for some distance. He came home and narrated the entire incident to his elder brother Vijay. He and his brother Vijay came back to the spot on a two wheeler scooter and searched for Rajesh, who was not found at the spot but was found lying in the bushes, at a distance of 3-4 paces from the spot, in an injured condition. He (Vikas) and his brother Vijay lifted him and put him on the scooter and he drove towards the police station. On the way just before the police station, a PCR Van met them. Thereupon, his brother Vijay sat in the PCR Van with his injured brother Rajesh and he followed them on his two wheeler scooter to Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, where Rajesh was declared brought dead. The police recorded his statement Ex.PW3/A. He accompanied the police officers to the place of occurrence and the IO prepared the site plan at his instance. The following day, i.e., on 7th May, 2002 at about 9.00 a.m., he and his brother Vijay and others went to the hospital where they identified the dead body of Rajesh and his statement to this effect was recorded by the police. Police had seized his blood stained shirt and the blood stained clothes of his brother, which also he identified.

3. In support of its aforesaid case, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses. All the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Three accused persons, namely, Anil Kumar @ Boota, Parveen and Gulab Singh chose to lead evidence in their defence and examined four witnesses. After scrutinizing the testimony of the witnesses of the prosecution and those of the accused, the learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had successfully established its case against all the four accused and convicted them for the offe