The court held that the evidence of the eye witnesses was reliable and established that the accused-appellants had caused the deceased's death. The court also held that the FSL report could not be relied upon against the accused-appellants because it was not put to the accused-appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and because there was no evidence that the knives which were recovered and sealed remained intact till they reached the FSL.

1. - Kalu Ram (PW-3) and deceased Raghuveer were real brothers. Chand Bai and Surji were real sisters. Chand Bai was married to PW-3 and Surji was married to the deceased. Their marriage had taken place about 9-10 years and Surji wife of the deceased died as a result of burning. One Het Ram, her uncle (TAU) had lodged the report (Ex.P.18) in Police Station Tijara, District Alwarand FIR No. 162/89 under Section 302 IPC was registered against the deceased, his father Prabhati and one Kamla. After investigation in that case, a final report No. 853 was submitted on 31.3.1989.

2. Accused-appellant Om Prakash @ Prakash is the real brother of the two sisters Surji Bai and Chand Bai. The case of the prosecution is that in the evening of 7.4.1990, the accused-appellant Om Prakash along with other accused-appellant Hukam Singh, his friend, had come to the house of the deceased Raghuveer. They had taken their meals in the evening and the deceased and the two accused-appellants slept in the same room inside the house. In the night intervening 7th and 8th April, 1990 when the accused-appellants and the deceased are said to be sleeping in the room, of Raghuveer deceased and the other members of the family namely Kalu (PW-3), Mangal (PW-2) and Chand Bai (PW-5) were also sleeping in their respective portion of the house, at about 11 p.m. shrieks were heard coming from inside the house where the deceased Raghuveer was sleeping. Kalu and Mangal Ram went towards that side and saw that both the accused-appellants were armed with knives and were giving blows to the deceased with their knives. They raised an alarm on account of which Khushi Ram (PW-7) and Leela Ram (PW-6) were attracted. However, the accused-persons made their escape. It was seen that the deceased was lying on his cot. A report of the incident was lodged by PW-3 Kalu in Police Station Tijara, where a case No. 68/90 was registered against the two accused persons.

3. PW-11 Jeevan Singh, Station House Officer of the Police Station Kishangarh Bas was on patrolling duty in the night intervening 7-8th April, 1990 along with Head Constable Jaisiram and other Constables and at about 3 a.m. when they were at the Bus Stand, Kishangarh Bas, they saw both the accused appellants and on being checked, it was found that they had no luggage with them. They could not explain their presence at the bus stand at that odd hour of the night. Two knives were recovered from their back pockets of the pant and on interrogation, the Station House Officer came to know about their involvement in a case of Police Station Tijara. They were arrested by Jeevan Singh. Knives were seized and sealed in separate packets. On the information being sent to Police Station Tijara, Narain Singh arrived there and the accused persons were taken to Police Station Tijara and so also the sealed packets of the knives were also taken to the Police Station. They were sent to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory along with other seized articles and the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory in his report which has not been exhibited and has only been marked as Mark-I-2, found that the knives which were recovered from the accused persons were stained with human blood and the blood group of them was (0).

4. Post mortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased and after usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused-appellants. They claimed to be tried. After the close of the prosecution witnesses each of the accused-appellants was examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code to explain the circumstances appearing against each of them and the evidence of the prosecution. Each of the accused-appellants stood on a bare plea of denial. They even denied having gone to the house of the deceased. So far as their arrest at the Bus Stand, Kishangarh Bos was concerned, it was given out by them that they were arrested at their house and not at the bus stand, as alleged. The accused persons did not examine a