The main legal point established is the reliance on eyewitness testimonies and corroborative evidence to establish guilt in a murder case.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

1. Jeetu Saini challenges his conviction by the impugned judgment dated 28th May, 2014 for having committed murder of Sonu Rana on 26th August, 2008. By the order on sentence dated 31st May, 2014, the appellant Jeetu Saini has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The conviction and sentence arises from the charge-sheet filed in FIR No.222/2008, Police Station Vikas Puri.

2. The impugned judgment acquits Shivani Wasan. The State and the legal heirs of the victim have not questioned the said acquittal.

3. The appellant disputes and calls in question the Trial Court’s reliance and acceptance of the testimony of the two police officers, namely, Ct. Subhash (PW4) and HC Satpal (PW7) as eye-witnesses. It is pleaded that they were neither the complainant nor the first informant. The first informant/complainant, Bhanu @ Jaswant (PW14A) has been disbelieved by the Trial Court as a trumped up and contrived eye-witness. The Trial Court, it is asserted, has for cogent reasons rejected the testimony of the foisted “eye-witness” Vinay Sharma (PW18). Drawing our attention to the FSL report marked Ex.PW13/L, Ex.PW22/A and Ex.PW13/K, it is highlighted that blood could not be detected on the all metallic weapon of offence. It is thus submitted, that the police version, that the appellant was apprehended at the spot after committing the offence is far-fetched and unbelievable. Reliance is placed upon the testimony of Rahul Kapoor (DW1). It is pleaded that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case, since he happened to be present at the spot as he had gone to see a movie with DW1.

4. We have also heard the counsel for the State who has contested the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant.

5. At the outset, we record that we are inclined to partly accept the finding of the Trial Court that the renditions by eye-witnesses Bhanu @ Jaswant (PW14A) and Vinay Sharma (PW18) as to the occurrence are not reliable or trust worthy. In all probability, they had not seen the occurrence. However, we would partly rely on their narrative on the question of motive and the background to the occurrence. At the same time, we find that the Trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant Jeetu Saini as the perpetrator of the crime, relying upon the testimonies of Ct. Subhash (PW4) and HC Satpal (PW7). We shall now elucidate and elaborate our reasons for accepting their testimonies and other corroborative and supporting circumstances which show and prove that the appellant Jeetu Saini was the perpetrator who had murdered Sonu Rana on 26.8.2008 at about 9 PM.

6. HC Satpal (PW7), on the relevant date and time, was on patrolling duty at the PVR Cinema, Vikas Puri along with Ct. Subhash (PW4). At about 9 P.M., observing that a group had gathered towards the south side of the police booth, he and Ct. Subhash (PW4) went there. They saw that one person was stabbing the other with a knife. The person who had inflicted the knife wounds was apprehended and Ct. Subhash (PW4) snatched the knife from his hand. HC Satpal (PW7), thereafter, identified the appellant as the person who had inflicted the knife injuries on the deceased and was apprehended and detained. The SHO was called and reached the place of occurrence in a gypsy. The injured was taken in the gypsy to the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital (DDU Hospital) by HC Satpal (PW7). There, he was declared as ‘brought dead’. We have gone through the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of PW7 and do not find any cogent reason to reject the factual assertion narrated by PW7. Presence of PW7 at the place of occurrence was not incidental or by chance. His presence at the place of occurrence was on call and certain. In his cross examination, PW7 has stated that PW4 had remained at the spot and he alone had gone to the hospital. The appellant w