Mukta Gupta, J.

1. Ring Road in Delhi is a two way carriage busy at all hours of the day. At the said Ring Road a wanton action of the occupants of two cars a Santro and an Accent intercepting an Indica car and the firing that ensued caused commotion, caught the attention of ASI Laik Ram posted at the PCR van Power-84 positioned near Shamshan Ghat, Ring Road, Punjabi Bagh. He sprung into action and noticed that the two cars have proceeded towards Raja Garden after firing which information he flashed. The injured were immediately removed to the ESI hospital at a very short distance from the place of occurrence. Bhupender and Raj Rani besides Sunil survived to narrate the incident resulting in the registration of FIR however, Brahm Singh later succumbed to his injuries.

2. By the common impugned judgement the appellants have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 120B/307/302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Sections 120B/302 IPC with a fine of Rs.8,000/- each and Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years for offences punishable under Sections 120B/307 IPC with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. The appellants Surender @ Kaira, Anil, Naresh Kapra and Deepak have also been convicted for offences punishable under Section 27 Arms Act and directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each. Sonu, Sanjay resident of Mundka and Vijay @ Lamba are proclaimed offenders and thus not before this Court.

3. Some of the grounds taken by the learned counsels for the appellants are common and some distinct relating to them individually. Common grounds to assail the impugned judgment are that Bhupender Kumar PW-1 and Raj Rani PW-2 have a clear motive to falsely implicate the appellants. There are material improvements in the testimony of the two witnesses and on the strength of these improvements they have implicated the brother and paternal cousins of Raj Rani. Though the appellants have been convicted for conspiracy of murder and conspiracy of attempt to commit murder however, there is neither any evidence nor any finding by the learned Trial Court regarding hatching of the conspiracy. In the FIR no roles are assigned to any of the accused however, subsequently specific roles are attributed which are contrary to the medical evidence. Further in order to implicate more and more people, the number of vehicles which reached the spot have been added. The sequence of events as per Bhupender and Raj Rani on October 8th and 9th, 2010 can be divided into five and on each event the role and number of accused have been added up thereby implicating more people. As per the ballistic expert report three cartridge cases of 7.65 calibre found from the spot, were not fired from the pistol of 7.65 calibre recovered at the instance of Sonu @ Satyawan however the three empty cartridge of 9 mm calibre recovered from the spot were fired from the 9 mm pistol recovered from Bhupender. Thus Bhupender, Sunil and Brahm Singh were the aggressors. There is no material to show that Raj Rani was not in a position to make the statement on October 09, 2006. No reliance can be placed on her statements recorded belatedly on October 15, 2006 under Section 161 Cr.P.C and thereafter under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsels for the appellants except Anil urged that admittedly Bhupender knew the appellants by name and being conscious he could have disclosed their names in the first instance to the PCR official Laik Ram. Bhupender in his cross-examination admitted that Shri Pradeep Rana, Advocate a criminal lawyer was his maternal uncle and he had reached when his statement Ex.PW-1/A was being recorded on the basis of which FIR was registered. Thus on legal advice names of other assailants were added which were further improved by supplementary statement Ex.PW-1/DX recorded on October 10, 2006.

5. In addition to the above averments learned counsel for Sandeep submit