1. - These two appeals are preferred to challenge the judgment and order dated 1.5.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Churu convicting the accused appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. The trial court after recording the conviction aforesaid, sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life term with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to payment of the same further to undergo three months' simple imprisonment.

2. As per the prosecution, on 13.6.2002 at 11:30 PM, the Station House Officer of Police Station Kotwali, Churu recorded 'parcha bayan' (Ex.P/12) of Shri Noratmal son of Ramlal stating therein that at about 10:00 PM of the same day when he alongwith Salim, resident of Rajaldesar was sitting at the stairs of Shyam Hall, Vinod son of Surajbhan Brahman and Paharia son of Dungar Bhaat came with knives and then Vinod put him down and gave a knife blow on his chest. Paharia gave a knife blow at the thigh of his left leg. A knife blow was again given by Vinod at his back. On gathering of nearby persons, including the cinema employees, the assailants ran away from the spot. Noratmal further stated that Vinod quarreled with him two days earlier too on the issue of his coming to the colony and only for that reason he and Paharia assaulted him with an intention to kill. As per the statement of Noratmal, after some time his maternal uncle Vinod etc. came to the spot and brought him to the hospital.

3. On basis of the statements aforesaid, a case was lodged for commission of offences under Sections 307, 324 IPC and regular investigation was initiated. On 14.6.2002 Noratmal was referred to Sawai Maan Singh Hospital, Jaipur for further treatment but in transit he succumbed to the injuries, therefore, investigation was made for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.

4. After regular investigation, charge sheet was filed and charges were framed for commission of offences under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. On denial of the same, trial was conducted and during the course of trial ten witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution and 29 documents were exhibited. The accused persons were also put forth for examination as per provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied entire case of the prosecution and they also produced two documents in defence.

5. Learned trial court, while relying upon witnesses PW-6 Asharam; PW-9 Goruram; PW-7 Vinod; PW- 10 Fariyad Khan, the Investigating Officer, and also the prosecution documents, convicted the accused appellants. While challenging the same, it is contended by Shri Mridul Jain, learned counsel for appellant Vinod that two eye witnesses viz. PW-6 Asharam and PW-9 Goruram are not at all eye witnesses and they were introduced with the prosecution case as an after thought. Learned counsel specifically pointed out that in 'parcha bayan' Ex.P/12, Noratmal nowhere referred presence of Asharam and Goruram though both the persons were known to him. It is further pointed out that Goruram in his statements in quite specific terms stated that Asharam was accompanying him while carrying Noratmal to the hospital, whereas PW-6 Asharam stated that Noratmal was taken to the hospital, whereas by Vinod and Goruram only. It is also urged that Noratmal in 'parcha bayan' Ex.P/12 stated about presence of Salim with him but prosecution failed to produce him in evidence and as such entire story is concocted one with support of PW- 6 Asharam and PW-9 Goruram who happen to be the persons belonging to the caste of deceased Noratmal.

6. The next argument advanced by counsel for the appellants is that the recovery of knives on basis of disclosure statements is not at all in accordance with law. It is urged that Ex.P/24 is the report relating to disclosure statements made by accused Vinod Kumar as per provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, wherein he has said that "oks pkdw eSaus vius edku fjgk;'kh ds eSu xsV ls nk