The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and trustworthy evidence, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the need to ensure that dying declarations are made voluntarily and without coercion.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

1. All the three appeals arise out of a common order dated 14.02.2014 and order on sentence dated 13.03.2014 by which all the three appellants had been held guilty and convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for one year.

2. All the three appeals have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.

3. The case of the prosecution before the learned trial court was that on 21.3.2009 at 6.00 p.m., an information was received in Police Station Jamia Nagar about a person having been injured in firing and lying at N-68, Batla House, near Khalil-Ul-Lah Mosque, New Delhi. The said information was recorded as DD No.21A. The information was sent to SI Ramjeet through Ct.Raj Kumar. Since Inspr.Amrit Raj was also present in the Police Station copy of DD No.21A was given to him for further action. Inspr.Amrit Raj along with SI Kameshwar Prasad, HC Qurban Ali, HC Virpal, Ct.Dhir Singh and Ct.Harender reached at spot. SI Ramjeet Singh and Ct.Raj Kumar were present at the spot, besides other public persons. The Police team found that one person, namely, Abdul Hafeez Khan, drenched in blood was lying in a vacant plot, in front of property no.N-85. He was having bullet injuries on his person. His wounds were bleeding and a lot of blood spread on the ground. One used cartridge, on the bottom of which KF 8 mm was engraved, was lying at some distance of the injured. The injured was removed to Holy Family Hospital in official Gypsy by HC Qurban Ali and Ct.Krishan Pal. IO collected the MLC of injured. The injured was shifted to ICU Ward. The treating Doctor declared the injured unfit for giving statement. HC Qurban Ali informed the IO that the injured had disclosed to him that Shaukat Pasha, Akbar Amroha, Rizwan and Anwar had fired at him. This statement was heard by Constable Krishan Pal. The injured succumbed to his injuries.

4. During investigation, all the accused persons were apprehended, who admitted their guilt in their disclosure statements. A charge sheet was filed against all the accused persons under Section 302/34, 212 and 216 of the IPC read with Sections 27/54/59 of the Arms Act. Accused Zahir, was discharged while the accused Akbar, Anwar and Shaukat Pasha were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 120B/302 of the IPC or alternatively under Sections 302/34 of the IPC vide order dated 30.8.2010 passed by the trial court. All of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined 29 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Although the accused persons, Akbar and Anwar, did not examine any witness in their defence but the accused, Shaukat Pahsa, sought two days’ time to give list of his witnesses, however, he failed to do so nor any evidence was led by him.

6. Mr. R.M. Tufail, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that there are various inconsistencies in the story of the prosecution, there are material contradictions and improvements in the statements of the witnesses and the judgment so passed has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. Counsel further submits that the trial court has relied upon the testimony of HC Qurban Ali (PW-18) which is not reliable for the reason that having regard to the bullet injuries suffered by the deceased, it was highly improbable that he was in a position to talk. Counsel for the appellants further contends that the testimony of HC Qurban Ali is also not reliable for the reason that according to HC Qurban Ali, the statement made by the deceased named the appellants herein which was also heard by Driver Krishan Pal, who could not have heard the statement, if any, made by the deceased as he was concentrating on the road. Mr. Tufail contents that HC Qurban Ali (PW-18) is not a reliable witness as