PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. In terms of the impugned judgment dated September 26, 2001 passed in Sessions Case No.63/98 the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shahdara, Delhi has held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and consequently sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life vide order on sentence dated September 27, 2001. Fine in sum of Rs. 5,000/- has also been imposed, in default of which the appellant would be liable to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. At the outset we may note that the co-accused Shahabuddin @ Shambu was acquitted by the learned Trial Judge and the State has not preferred an appeal against the said acquittal.

3. The facts germane to the adjudication of the present appeal lie within a narrow compass and may be taken note of pithily to avoid prolixity, while eschewing unnecessary reference to the circumstances/evidence emerging qua the acquitted co-accused.

4. On the night of December 13, 1997 at around 10:00 PM Nem Pal @ Khattal (hereinafter referred as the ‘deceased’) was in the company of six-seven boys near Secondary School, Dayalpur on the main Karawal Nagar Road. He was sitting on a black Yezdi motorcycle bearing registration No.DL-7SC-7954 Ex.P-4, whereas, the other boys were standing in front of him. The present appellant, who was amongst the group of boys, is stated to have suddenly fired a shot at the deceased using a ‘katta’. Upon suffering the gun shot, the deceased rushed towards the co-accused Shahabuddin @ Shambu; who was also part of the said group. The co-accused Shahabuddin @ Shambu is stated to have slapped the deceased and pushed him away. All the boys, including the appellant and the co-accused fled from the spot leaving behind Nem Pal in an injured condition.

5. The said incident is alleged to have been witnessed by Lalit Kumar @ Rinku PW-3 from a distance of ten-fifteen steps. Admittedly, the said witness did not interact with Nem Pal; who was lying in an injured condition and made no efforts to summon medical assistance or inform the police.

6. According to the said witness, one person named Bhikhari PW-22 fortuitously arrived at the spot of occurrence. He was in a drunk condition. The injured- Nem Pal requested Bhikhari to inform about the incident at his house. In furtherance thereof, Bhikhari is stated to have proceeded to the residence of Nem Pal. Admittedly according to the prosecution, the solitary eye witness to the incident, namely- Lalit Kumar @ Rinku did not even interact with Bhikhari and stood at the spot passively, merely observing the events transpire. At this point of time, Lalit Kumar @ Rinku left the spot and went home. He did not inform anyone about the incident he had witnessed and stayed tight-lipped till the night of December 15, 1997 when the police made enquiries from him.

7. Sometime thereafter, another chance passer-by Sanjay Kumar PW-6 reached the spot of occurrence and found Nem Pal lying in an injured condition. He deposed that Nem Pal requested him to go to his house and inform that he had been shot. The said witness expressed his inability as he was not aware of the location of the house of the injured. According to the witness, Nem Pal revealed that either he had been shot by boys of Chand Bagh or at the Chand Bagh pulia. We cannot be impervious to the fact that Nem Pal had suffered a gun shot injury on a vital organ and was helplessly lying injured without medical assistance since some time. Naturally, he must have slurred and not communicated with clarity. Sanjay Kumar rushed to his tenement and returned to the spot with his land-lady. However, upon his return he observed that the injured- Nem Pal was being carried by two boys in a cycle rickshaw.

8. Devender cousin brother of Nem Pal has deposed that on the night in question Bhikhari came to the house of Nem Pal and informed that Nem Pal had been shot. Thereupon, he accompanied Bhikhari to the spot of occurrence and brought Nem