The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible and consistent evidence in criminal cases to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. The accused-appellant Harphool was tried alongwith one Bansi for the murder of Bhagwan Sahai. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 67/90 under his judgment dated 3rd March, 1993 convicted the accused appellant Harphool under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. But the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the other accused Bansi. Harphool has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence.

2. The case of the prosecution is that Bhagwan Sahai deceased was the son of PW 4 Kaluram. The deceased was the resident of village Barodia, Police Station Viratnagar and the accused-appellant Harphool had given a loan of Rs. 1,000/- for which a demand is said to have been made from deceased Bhagwan Sahai and his father Kaluram PW 4, but the amount was not being paid, despite the demand having been made continuously for a period of a month or two. The case of the prosecution is that on 6th May, 1990, it was Sunday and at about 4 p.m. Bhagwan Sahai went to Harphool accused appellant who is also a resident of village Barodia, to demand Rs. 1,000/- and opposite to the house of the accused-appellant there was some exchange of hot words in between the accused appellant and Bhagwan Sahai deceased. No document was there in respect of alleged loan. Bansi son of Chunaram also arrived there and said to have caught hold of Bhagwan Sahai. At that moment, the accused-appellant is said to have gone to his house and returned with a buttoned knife and stabbed Bhagwan Sahai on the side of the chest. The occurance is said to have been witnessed by PW 4 Kaluram, father of Bhagwan Sahai deceased as well as PW 2 Hanuman also a relative of Choturam PW 6. It appears that the deceased Bhagwan Sahai was still injured while taken to the hospital, but it is not known to which hospital where injury No. 1 was stitched he was taken and then perhaps on the advise of the doctor he was taken to the SMS Hospital, Jaipur where he was admitted as an indoor patient and expired on 7th May, 1990 at 9.45 p.m. A report was lodged only on 8th May, 1990 and on the report Ex.P. 4 of Kaluram, a case was registered and investigation was set in motion.

3. The post-mortem was conducted and the accused-appellant was arrested and in his information a 'Rapi' a sharp edged weapon was recovered and seized and sealed. Chaddi, Baniyan and towel were also seized and sealed and they were sent to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory who examined them and found that each of them were stained with human blood. But the group of blood could not be determined.

4. The accused appellant was tried alongwith one Bansi and as said earlier the accused appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid and Bansi was acquitted. The accused appellant stood on a bare plea of denial as appears from his statement recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. before the learned trial court. The accused did not examine any witness in defence.

5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that there is delay in lodging the First Information Report and the said delay has not been explained. Learned counsel further contended that all the three witnesses namely Hanuman PW 2, Kaluram PW 4 and Choturam PW 6 are partisan and interested witnesses being of the same family and their statements cannot be relied upon, more so when there were independent witnesses available, but they were not examined, more so when there are contradictions on the material particulars at least on the point of weapon whether it was a knife or rapi which admittedly are not same kind of weapon. Learned counsel has not raised and could not raise any dispute so far as factum of death as a result of injuries is concerned and there can be no dispute that the deceased died as a result of Se