Sanjiv Khanna, J.

1. Psychologists and criminologists have tried to formulate theories to explain recalcitrant and deviant behaviour in the youth of a given society. Acknowledging critiques and different theories, any generalisation is not attempted. But what can be safely inferred from the discussions is that youth does, sometimes, tend to get involved in perilous behaviour. Cataclysmic behaviour when done in turbulent adolescence is at times as an attempt to ‘self-promotion’ of oneself in the social circles with the desire to be the Triton among the minnows and attain identification. This charade in youth can blow up to constitute criminal behaviour and therefore mandates adequate punishment. The present case deals with one such incident whereby a young man indulged in showing off his fire-arm and now finds himself behind the bars. Another young man in his prime youth lost his life, leaving behind the crestfallen parents.

2. The appellant Parvinder @ Moti challenges his conviction by the impugned judgment dated 1st October, 2013, for having murdered Varun by a gunshot wound on 28th November, 2007. The appellant, by order on sentence dated 22nd October, 2013, has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short). In default of payment of fine, Parvinder @ Moti has to undergo simple imprisonment of one year. The appellant has also been sentenced under Section 201, IPC to rigorous imprisonment for three years, fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The punishments are to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C., for short) has been granted.

3. The impugned judgment acquits Rajat Passi @ Doctor and Amit @ Amar. Neither the State nor the victim has preferred an appeal against their acquittal and, therefore, the subject matter of the present appeal is the challenge to the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant Parvinder @ Moti.

4. The prosecution in the present case relies upon the testimonies of eye witnesses, Sachin, Nitin and Yashwant, who had appeared and deposed as PW-1, 2 and 8, respectively. The challenge is to their testimonies and other evidences relied upon by the prosecution. We would refer to the depositions of PWs 1, 2, and 8, and deal with the contentions made and decide the grounds raised.

5. Sachin (PW-1) has deposed that on 28th November, 2007, at about 6 P.M., he along with Nitin (PW-2) were driving in their car on the Nelson Mandela (Grand) Road, when they received a call from the deceased Varun. They reached a coffee shop at C-6, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, where deceased Varun joined them. They then went for a drive in Sachin’s (PW-1) car. Varun proposed that they should have dinner together. Thereupon, Varun had made a call to his friend Mikhel (sic, Michael) as they did not have sufficient money. Mikhel met them in front of B-11, Vasant Arcade and they proceeded to his house and collected money. They drove around in the Vasant Kunj area before parking the car near Vasant Arcade. There, they met Yashwant (PW-8) and Yogender. All of them sat in the car, drove and purchased “fruit beer” from Pushpanjali Petrol Pump, Vasant Kunj. The appellant Parvinder @ Moti spoke to Sachin (PW-1) on his mobile phone and informed he would meet them at Vasant Arcade. When they reached Vasant Arcade, Parvinder @ Moti was present and standing by his car. They exchanged greetings. Parvinder @ Moti took out a pistol from his car and fired in the air. They got scared as it was a public place and there was a police station nearby. Nitin (PW-2) got out from the car. The appellant Parvinder @ Moti then aimed the pistol at Varun, and fired the second shot. Deceased Varun informed Sachin (PW-1) that he had received a bullet injury. PW-1 touched Varun’s chest and found that blood was oozing. PW-1 took the deceased