The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of prompt lodging of the FIR, the need for a satisfactory explanation for any delay, and the significance of the circumstances surrounding the arrest of the accused and the non-examination of crucial witnesses in determining the reliability of the prosecution's case.

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. This judgment will dispose of three appeals, directed against a common judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 20.01.2011, in SC No. 65/2009. The appellants were convicted of the offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. They were sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 each, in default of which they were to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months each.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 23.03.2006 at about 05:35 PM, DD No.12A was recorded by PW-5, HC Krishan Lal stating that a person was lying injured (and seemed to have been stabbed) near Samadhan School, E and F Block Dakshinpuri. On receipt of this information, SI Rajeev Kumar (PW-15) reached the spot along with Constable Hari Singh; he found blood, pieces of broken glass bottle, two slippers and two buttons of a white shirt lying at the spot. As the injured had already been removed to Batra hospital, he left Const. Hari Singh at the spot and went there. He collected the MLC of Khoob Chand, (the deceased) Ex.PW-4/A, which mentioned that he was brought dead to the hospital.Ghanshyam, PW-6, the deceased’s brother who was an eye witness to the incident met the IO. His statement (Ex.PW-6/A) was recorded. PW-6 in his statement stated that he saw Ajay @ Chotu, resident of Tigri, catching hold of his brother (deceased) while Anil @ Monu, resident of Tigri, was holding a broken glass bottle in his hand and Vicky, resident of Dakshinpuri was holding a knife in his hand. He further stated that all the three persons were known to his brother and they were attacking him. Upon seeing the appellants attacking his brother, PW-6 stopped his scooter and immediately rushed to save him but in the meantime Vicky stabbed his brother with a knife in the abdomen and Monu attacked him with a broken glass bottle. He further stated that on seeing him (PW-6) the appellants fled the spot, leaving his brother in a pool of blood. A PCR van came and PW-6 along with his brother went to Batra hospital. On the basis of PW-6’s statement, the rukka was prepared and FIR No. 182 of 2006 was registered under sections 302/34 IPC.

3. After completion of investigation, charges were framed against the appellants Ajay, Anil and Vicky. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, to prove its case examined 19 witnesses. The material witnesses relied upon by the prosecution are PW-6 Ghanshyam, PW-13 Nirbhay Singh, PW-15 SI Rajeev Kumar and PW-18 Sobhan Singh. After considering these, and other materials, including exhibits, and documents placed on record during the trial, the impugned judgment convicted the appellants in the manner stated earlier, and sentenced them to undergo various prison terms.

4. Counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained on the facts. It was highlighted that PW-6 was not an eyewitness at all, and was introduced later to bolster the case, which was essentially a blind murder. Counsel highlighted the fact that the earliest intimation was received by the police, first at 05:35PM and later, the very next minute. In both instances, the information given was that a body was lying at the spot of occurrence. Counsel argued that the prosecution had initially listed one Satish, whose shop was just opposite the spot of occurrence, and even his statement was recorded three times. Yet he was dropped as a witness, deliberately during the trial. This indicated that the prosecution wished to deliberately hide something from the court, as his statement would have revealed the real state of affairs. In this regard, reliance was placed on the judgment reported as State of UP v. Jaggoo AIR 1971 SC 1586, where it was held that:

“It is true that all the witnesses of the prosecution need not be called but it is important to notice that the witness whose evidence is essential to the "unfolding of the narrative" should be called. This sa