The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the ocular testimonies of the witnesses, particularly PW-6 and PW-8, and the acceptance of their evidence as substantially corroborative and not suffering from any contradictions that could render their account incredible.

R.K. GAUBA, J:

1. The appellants with one another (Satish Chander @ Chandra) were sent up for trial before the court of Sessions on the basis of report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) submitted on 13.11.1990 upon conclusion of investigation into first information report (FIR) No.222/1990 of police Station Dabri (the police station) for offences punishable under Sections 302/324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Upon consideration of the evidence gathered during investigation by the police, as set out in the said police report (charge sheet), the learned additional sessions judge in seisin of the sessions case (No.30/1992) framed charge against all the four said persons for offences under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

2. Midway the trial, the fourth accused (Satish Chander @ Chandra) jumped bail and inspite of the issuance of duress process against him, his presence could not be secured. He was declared a proclaimed offender by the trial court vide order dated 27.02.1999. The trial continued against the remaining three (appellants before this Court) and culminated in judgment on 2nd March, 2000 whereby all of them i.e. Anil Kumar @ Mithu (A-1), Sunil Kumar @ Dudha (A-2) and Dinesh Kumar Sharma (A-3) were held guilty 302 read with 34 IPC whilst appellant Anil Kumar @ Mithu (A-1) was also held guilty, again as charged, for offence under Section 324 IPC. By order passed by the trial court on 9th March, 2000, rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- was awarded for the offence of murder under Section 302/34 IPC to each of the three appellants. In addition, Anil Kumar @ Mithu (A-1) was awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 324 IPC, it having been directed to be run concurrently.

3. By their joint appeal (Crl. Appeal No.250/2000) Anil Kumar @ Mithu (A-1) and Sunil Kumar @ Dudha (A-2) and by his separate appeal (Crl.Appeal No. 394/2000) Dinesh Kumar Sharma (A-3) assailed the judgment and order on sentence.

4. Some facts which are not disputed or beyond the pale of any controversy or doubt may be taken note of at the outset.

5. The charge for the offence of murder arises out of death of Ravi Kant son of Chandra Kant (PW-8), and husband of Santosh (PW-6), then resident of house No. K-643, Gali No. 9, Indira Park, Palam Colony, New Delhi. He was about 35 years old at the relevant point of time (per death certificate Ex. PW-11/C), in government service, he being the eldest among five siblings, his brothers including Uma Kant (PW-3) and Shashi Kant. It appears Uma Kant (PW-3) and Shashi Kant were earning their livelihood from a small shop in the name of Shashi Arts in the same locality. Though in the FIR, registered on the basis of statement (Ex.PW-2/A) of Shakuntala (PW-2), as noted in deposition of the said first informant (PW-2), she is described as wife of the brother of the deceased, the evidence of Uma Kant (PW-3) would clarify that her husband Tej Ram is cousin brother of the deceased. Tej Ram with his family including his wife Shakuntla (PW-2), first informant, would live separately in their house bearing No. RZ4/C, Gali No.2 in the same locality (Indira Park).

6. Appellant Anil Kumar @ Mithu (A-1) and Sunil Kumar @ Dudha (A-2) are real brothers (sons of Chattar Singh) and residents of a house separated by just one another from that of the deceased and his family {including brother (PW-3), wife (PW-6) and father (PW-8)} on the same street (Gali No.9). It was not disputed at any stage during the trial, nor has been raised as a bone of contention before us during the hearing on the appeals that the said witnesses being close neighbours, have been acquainted with the said appellants as indeed with appellant Dinesh Kumar Sharma (A-3) by faces and names from before. In fact, the evidence about past enmity (it having been presented as the root cause of the subject incident) has gone unchallenged and unimpeached, it also bein