The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of properly evaluating evidence, including the admissibility of hearsay evidence and the consideration of witness depositions, and the need for a fresh decision based on proper evaluation of evidence.

1. Petitioner is the brother of deceased, who is aggrieved by impugned order of 10th February, 2006 vide which respondent No.1-accused has been acquitted in FIR No. 485/1997, under Sections 302 of the IPC, registered at police station Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. Holding that prosecution has failed to substantiate the case against respondent No.1-accused, the trial court has acquitted first respondent herein.

2. The trial court proceeds to acquit respondent No.1-accused by holding that in circumstantial evidence case, the conduct of the respondent No.1-accused militates against his being guilty of the offence in question. The finding returned by the trial court on this aspect is as under:-

"37. It is in the statements of PW Hukam Singh, Ct. Suresh, HC Suresh and HC Sumer Singh that accused and the deceased were seen going to the barrack together. It is not case of the prosecution that before or while going towards the barrack, the accused and the deceased quarreled with each other. PW5 Balraj and ASI Jai Narain (PW6), brother of the deceased at the time of identification of dead-body of Sat Narain found that the 2nd button, from the top, of the shirt of Sat Narain was missing. Argument put forth on behalf of the prosecution is that this shows that there was scuffle between the accused and the deceased. But I do not find any substance in this argument, particularly when there is no evidence on record to suggest that before the accused and deceased entered the room of the barracks, all the buttons of the shirt of Sat Narain were in place and also because no button was recovered from the spot during the investigation.

38. As noticed above, had their relations not been cordial they would not have gone to the barrack together. Had the accused been involved in firing the shot which hit Ct. Sat Narain, the accused would have tried to run away or conceal his presence or that he was found trembling with fear or raising alarm that he had done this job by hitting Ct. Sat Narain. None of the above four prosecution witnesses has deposed that accused tried to run away or conceal his presence or raised any such alarm. Rather, it stands established from their testimony that the accused helped in bringing the injured down and then removed the injured to the hospital while himself driving the vehicle."

3. The finding returned by the trial court on the circumstance of extrajudicial confession is as follows:-

"32. In the present case, PW Constable Suresh Kumar had deposed that when he reached the place where Constable Sat Narain was lying on a cot, Braham Singh accused, standing there, replied to his (PW’s) query that while he was taking out the clothes from the box per chance a shot got fired and hit Sat Narain.

XXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXX

35. HC Hukum Singh, the concerned Duty Officer, who had sent Constable Suresh to go upstairs and check as to what had happened, stepped into the witness box as PW1. He deposed having sent Constable Suresh towards barracks. He further deposed that HC Sumer Singh, who was present in the Duty-officer room, also went and after sometime HC Sumer Singh, Constable Suresh and Constable Brahm Singh (accused) brought constable Sat Narain to take him to hospital as the constable was in injured condition and bleeding. It is pertinent to mention that HC Hukam Singh nowhere deposed that the accused had disclosed to them that shot got suddenly fired when he was taking clothes out of the box.

36. Constable Suresh Kumar did not disclose the fact of shot getting fired suddenly either to HC Sumer Singh, who had also reached the place of occurrence, or to HC Hukam Singh, the concerned Duty Officer, who had sent him to that place to enquire as to what had happened there. Therefore, the version narrated by PW9 Constable Suresh Kumar in this respect does not inspire confidence.”

4. On the motive aspect, the finding returned by the trial court is as under:-

"22. In her cross-examination, Smt. Kusum Lata candidly admitted to have info