The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reliability of eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence, and motive are crucial in establishing guilt, and the non-recovery of the weapon of offence does not weaken the prosecution's case.

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.

1. Vide this common order, we shall dispose of the Crl. Appeal No. 582/2018 and Criminal Appeal No.822/2018. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred as “Cr.P.C.”) assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 21.12.2017 and order on sentence dated 29.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Court, Delhi in case FIR No. 490/2009 under Section 302/34 registered at Police Station - New Friends Colony, Delhi by virtue of which the appellants have been convicted under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (herein after referred as 'IPC') and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Trial Court are as under:-

On 01.11.2009 at about 10:30 PM, DD No.21A was registered at PS New Friends Colony stated therein that injured Goverdhan had sustained injuries and he was admitted to holy Family Hospital where the doctor declared him brought dead. The duty officer had entered the information in the Roznamacha as DD No. 28A and same was entrusted to HC Dinesh Kumar. On the information Inspector Jagbir Singh along with HC Karambir, Ct. Ravinder, Ct Anil and other police officials reached at Holy Family Hospital and obtained the MLC of injured/deceased Goverdhan. The eye witness Mahidullah and other staff members reached at the spot where he prepared Rukka Ex.PW20/A and handed over the same to Ct. Ravinder for registration of FIR. In the meantime, the crime team had also arrived at the spot and had inspected the scene of crime. IO prepared site plan at the instance of complainant Ex. PW 12/A. IO recorded the statement of PW1 Mahidullah who stated that he was running a Kabadi shop at Pahari No.2, Taimur Nagar. On 01.11.2009, he was present at his Kabadi shop. There was milk diary opposite his kabadi shop. The milk diary was run by one Ishwar. On that day at about 9:30PM, he was collecting garbage at his Kabadi shop. He saw several persons coming from Pahari No.1 and accused Noor Jamal was also among them. He saw one boy namely Goverdhan who was tying calf with a rope. At that time he saw that accused Kabir and Dulal caught hold the deceased Goverdhan and accused Noor Jamal stabbed the injured/deceased. IO collected the blood stained earth control as well as the earth control from the spot, from cow dung (Gobar) and from the cemented concrete and kept the same in 6 separate boxes and sealed the same with the seal “JS” and took into possession the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. He also collected the blood stained brick and removed the blood from the wall with thaw help of cotton separately sealed the same with the seal of “JS” and took into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C. He sent the dead body to the mortuary of AIIMS Hospital through Ct. Munesh and Ct. Kishan Swaroop. Accused Noor Jamal was arrested from CRRI bus stand, Mathura Road vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/D and his personal search was also conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW1/E. Accused Noor Jamal made a disclosure statement Ex.PW2/E. Accused Kabir was arrested from PS Satbadi, Jammu accused Dulal was absconded and he was declared proclaimed offender.

On completion of the investigation and other formalities the charge sheet was finally filed against Md. Noor Jamal and Kabir in the court of Ld. MM. The Ld. MM after complying with the provisions of section 207 CrPC committed the case to the court of sessions for trial."

3. To bring home the guilt of the appellants the prosecution examined 20 witnesses in all. The statements of the appellants were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC wherein they pleaded their innocence by denying all the incriminating circumstances and claimed to have been falsely implicated.

4. Appearing for the appellant in Crl. A. No. 582/2018, Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate contended that the impugned or