Sanjiv Khanna, J.—

Crimes, as distinguished from civil wrongs, are wrongs against the society and demand seraphic justice by way of punishment of imprisonment and/or fine. Power to investigate crimes and, thereafter, prosecute the offender, is given to the police, a neutral third party as a norm, and not to the victim though in certain cases a private complaint may be maintainable. Compelling reasons for this is that police investigation is expected to ensure independent, unprejudiced and objective verification, scientific and professional conduct in collection of evidence/material and filing of charge-sheet without bias in favour or against the perpetrator or the victim.

2. The present appeals by Ashok Khatri, Raj Kumar, Anil, Shailender, Anar Singh, Anand and Asha, impugning their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) for murder of Ajay, under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC for attempt to murder of Vimla and allegations under Sections 147/148 IPC, are rendered somewhat arduous and laborious as both, the appellants and the family members of the deceased Ajay and injured Vimla, have hurled allegations against the police officers and have cast doubts and aspersions on them. Therefore, the present appeal requires a microscopic scrutiny of the statements of eye-witnesses, Vimla (PW-4) who, as is natural, happens to be injured herself and the family members of deceased Ajay. Similarly scrupulous scrutiny is required of the statements made by the two Investigating Officers. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that another co-accused Dharampal, father of three male appellants and father-in-law of Asha, had expired during the course of trial. The six appellants, all related and belonging to one family, have been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.25,000/- each in respect of offence under Section 302, read with Section 149 IPC, with the stipulation that in case of default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years. For the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC, they have been sentenced to 7 years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- each, again with stipulation that in default of payment of fine, the appellants would suffer simple imprisonment for one year. No separate sentence under Sections 147 and 148 IPC has been awarded in view of provisions of Section 71 IPC.

3. Before going into contentious issues; the alleged involvement of the appellants and, in case the involvement of the appellants is proved, the sections under which they should be convicted, we think it appropriate to first record admitted facts and our findings on some disputed facts which can be decided on the basis of contemporaneous documents, executed by doctors who had examined the deceased Ajay or injured Vimla or by examination of exhibits read with the statement of witnesses. Elucidation on the said admitted or disputed facts will be helpful when we examine the contentious issues raised that are required to be answered.

4. The admitted or other contentious or disputed facts, which we feel can be clearly determined without detailed reference to evidence are as under:

4.1 The deceased Ajay and injured Vimla, along with their family members, were residing at 195, Rajpura Gudmandi, Delhi.

4.2 The appellants were residents of 178/2 Rajpura Gur Mandi, Delhi. Thus, the appellants, deceased Ajay and injured Vimla and their family members were neighbours.

4.3 There is evidence and material to show that the two families were known to each other and there was no past history of animosity or ill-will. Meenu Rana (PW-1), Saurav (PW-2), Vimla Rana(PW-4) and Attar Singh (PW-7) have accepted and admitted that the deceased Ajay and Dharampal were property dealers and used to operate from the same shop/property.

4.4 Meenu Rana (PW-1), wife of deceased Ajay Rana, has stated that they knew the family of Anar Singh, prior to the incident, as her late h