The testimony of injured eyewitnesses is accorded special status, supporting conviction based on consistent accounts despite one witness turning hostile, establishing the appellant's guilt with corroborative medical evidence.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) and Section 383 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 324, 307, and 302 - Murder conviction and sentencing - The appellant convicted for murder by inflicting deadly injuries using knives and a meat chopper, sentenced to life imprisonment and consecutive sentences under IPC sections - Appellant's motive traced to personal grievance. (Paras 1-2, 31, 35, 41, 44)

(B) Evidence - Testimony of injured eyewitnesses holds strong credibility - The Court finds eyewitness testimony consistent and credible despite one witness turning hostile; conviction upheld based on ocular and medical evidence. (Paras 36-42)

(C) Appeal - Appellate court to examine evidence comprehensively; inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts do not detract from overall credibility of testimonies supporting conviction. (Paras 32, 40)

Facts of the case:
The appellant attacked the victim resulting in death due to grievous injuries inflicted with multiple weapons during a personal dispute, witnessed by neighboring shop owners, leading to arrest. (Paras 3-4)

Findings of Court:
Court affirms the trial court's conclusions based on strong ocular evidence from injured witnesses and medical examinations indicating homicide, along with reliable forensic reports linking the appellant to the crime. (Paras 35-36)

Issues: The main issues include the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the role of hostile witnesses, and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the conviction for murder. (Paras 31, 40)

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied principles regarding the weight of injured eyewitness testimony, reinforced the significance of motive, and determined that consistency among witness testimonies sufficed to uphold the conviction amid minor discrepancies. (Paras 39-41)

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentencing upheld.

Table of Content
1. appellant appeals conviction and sentence. (Para 1 , 2)
2. prosecution outlines the facts and evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. police investigation and evidence collection. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. victim's injuries and cause of death established. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
5. forensic evidence corroborates prosecution case. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. evidence of blood type and connection to the crime. (Para 23 , 24)
7. trial proceedings and witness testimonies. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
8. witness credibility and testimony analysis. (Para 29 , 30)
9. summary of trial court findings. (Para 31)
10. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
11. court's reasoning and legal standards. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
12. final conclusions and judgment upheld. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)

JUDGMENT

Anup Jairam Bhambhani J. By way of the present appeal under section 374(2) read with section 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`CrPC'), the appellant Satish Kumar Khurana, assails judgement of conviction dated 01.05.2019 and order on sentence dated 07.05.2019 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS), Dwarka Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 440781/16 titled `State vs. Satish Kumar Khurana' emanating from F.I.R No. 225/2012 registered at P.S.: Bindapur under sections 324/307/302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC').

2. By way of the impugned judgement the appellant was convicted for committing the murder of one Sanjay Goel s/o Ram Avtar Goyal (`victim/deceased') by inflicting deadly injury using two knives and a meat `chopper'. By way of the sentencing order the appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under section 302 IPC alongwith fine of Rs.50,000/-, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 03 months; and further, to rigorous imprisonment for 03 years for offence under section 307 IPC alongwith fine of Rs.20,000/-, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 02 months; in addition to rigorous imprisonment of 01 year for the offence under section 324 IPC alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/-, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 01 month. Affording to the appellant the benefit of section 428 CrPC, all sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Prosecution Case:

3. The case of the prosecution is that on the evening of 21.07.2012 between 6:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., the appellant, who owned and ran a store under the name and style of `Prerna Fashion' at the Sriram Complex located at Arya Samaj Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, entered the complex and started attacking the victim with two knives [Exb. PW-8/I and Exb. PW-8/K] and a meat `chopper' [Exb. PW-8/L], which caused multiple serious injuries to the victim and ultimately led to his death. It is the prosecution case that the appellant attacked the victim for speaking ill of the appellant's wife.

4. The incident is stated to have been witnessed by: PW-1 Sh. Kamal Kishore Verma, who was the owner of a neighbouring store and also an injured eye-witness; by PW-2 Sh. Rajkumar Dabbas who is also stated to have been an eye-witness, who however turned hostile during trial; by PW-3 Sh. Deepak Chawla, also a neighboring store-owner and injured eye-witness; and by PW-4 Sh. Pawan Nagpal, again a neighboring store-owner and injured eye-witness.

5. It is the prosecution's case that when the appellant entered the Sriram Complex at about 6:30/7:00 pm on 21.07.2012 and started attacking the victim, PW-1 attempted to intervene; whereupon the appellant also attacked PW-1 with the meat `chopper' and knives, due to which PW-1 sustained injuries on his chest and right hand, at which point he retreated into his shop. The meat `chopper' is stated to have fallen inside PW-1's shop.

6. Subsequently, PW-3 states that he also saw the appellant hitting the victim as well as PW-1; and when PW-3 attempted to intervene, the appellant assaulted him as well with the k