JUDGMENT :

Gita Mittal, J.

Justice to all-the accused, the society as well as a fair chance to prove to the prosecution-is not only an integral part of the criminal justice system but it is its prime objective. This finds reiteration by the Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported at (2012) 8 SCC 263, Dayal Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal when the court emphasized thus:

34. Where our criminal justice system provides safeguards of fair trial and innocent till proven guilty to an accused, there it also contemplates that a criminal trial is meant for doing justice to all, the accused, the society and a fair chance to prove to the prosecution. Then alone can law and order be maintained. The courts do not merely discharge the function to ensure that no innocent man is punished, but also that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties of the judge. During the course of the trial, the learned Presiding Judge is expected to work objectively and in a correct perspective. Where the prosecution attempts to misdirect the trial on the basis of a perfunctory or designedly defective investigation, there the Court is to be deeply cautious and ensure that despite such an attempt, the determinative process is not subverted. For truly attaining this object of a "fair trial", the Court should leave no stone unturned to do justice and protect the interest of the society as well.

In the two trials giving rise to these appeals, these are the public duties which the learned Trial Judges have endeavoured to discharge. While adjudicating upon these appeals, it is these very duties which we have been called upon to perform.

2. The appellants in Crl. Appeal nos. 741/2008 and 910/2008 have assailed the judgment dated 28th May, 2008 in SC Case No. 78/2002 whereby they stand convicted for commission of offences under Sections 364 , 302 , 201 of the Indian Penal Code and the order on sentence dated 30th May, 2008. Whereas the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 145/2012 has laid a challenge to the judgment dated 6th of July 2011 whereby he stands convicted for commission of the same offence in SC Case No. 76/2008 and order on sentence dated 12th of July 2011.

By the present judgment, we propose to decide the challenge to the judgments dated 28th of May 2008 and 6th July, 2011 on which detailed arguments have been addressed.

The case of the prosecution

3. We may first briefly notice the case of the prosecution. The Katara family were residents of 7 Chelmsford Road, New Delhi, an official accommodation allotted to Shri Nishit M. Katara, government servant. The family consisted of his wife Nilam Katara; their elder son Nitish Katara (deceased) and a second son Nitin Katara.

4. In the year 1998, Nitish Katara joined the IMT, Ghaziabad in order to pursue an MBA (PGDBM) course. In his class, he befriended Gaurav Gupta, Bharat Diwakar and Bharti Yadav (daughter of Shri D.P. Yadav, Member of Parliament and an industrialist). Bharti Yadav's best friend from childhood, Shivani Gaur, was also studying at IMT Ghaziabad but pursuing a different course at that time, i.e. the PGDEM course, specializing in marketing.

5. The course finished in the year 2000 whereafter Bharat Diwakar and Gaurav Gupta moved away to their respective home towns while Nitish Katara took a job with Reliance General Insurance in Delhi itself as his father was ill. Bharti continued to reside in the National Capital Region as well. In around January, 2001 with passage of time the friendship of this young couple blossomed into a love affair. This relationship was known to Bharti's family members and relatives including her sister Bhawna Yadav, mother Umlesh Yadav, brother Vikas Yadav, cousin brother Vishal Yadav as well as her maternal aunt ('mami'-mother's brother's wife/wife of Bharat Singh) and paternal aunt ('bua'-father's sister).

It is the prosecution case that this relationship was not palatable to Vikas and Vishal Yadav, and that they were opposed to it. This aversion was the motive for