SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.

1. The appellant before this Court was convicted under Section 302 of IPC. The conviction and sentence have been upheld by the High Court in appeal. As per the prosecution it is a case of a daylight murder with a reliable eye-witness.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.05.1993 at about 8:15 pm while PW-2, who was sister-in-law of the deceased was returning from Ram Bazar, the deceased and the accused were walking a few steps ahead of her. After a few minutes she saw the two, i.e. the deceased Rakesh and Chandan, grappling with each other and then she saw the accused Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2024.04.05 15:43:12 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified stabbing the deceased multiple times with the knife he was carrying. The deceased fell on the ground and the accused/appellant fled away. The deceased, Rakesh, was first taken to the adjacent clinic which was a private clinic of Dr.

Kalra in the vicinity, where they were advised to take him to Hindu Rao hospital which was the nearest hospital where an emergency treatment could be given to the deceased. By the time the deceased reached the hospital he was declared dead.

Post-mortem was conducted on the deceased the next day i.e. on 29.05.1993, and the following ante-mortem injuries were detected:

“1. An incised stab wound 22 cm x 2 cm x? places vertically on the left claricular area.

(cellar bone region).

2. An incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x? vertically present just below an moidal to the left nipple.

3. An incised wound 3 cm. x 1.5 cm x? transversally places on the middle on left arm over anterolateral surface. The medial end was actually cut.

4. An incised wound 1.5 cm. x. 0.8 cm. x ? transversally placed on the back of let arm upper part. The posterior end of the injury was actually cut.

Injury No. 3 and 4 were found to be communicating with each other.

5. An incised wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 x ? vertically placed on the left lateral chest wall on the seventhribs, lower and was acute.

6. An incised wound 20. cm. x · 1.5 cm. x ? sprindle shape on the top of let shoulder.

7. An incised wound 2 cm. x 0.5 cm. x muscle deep on the left scapular area.

8. An incised wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x? placed vertically on the left renal angle.”

It was further observed:

“Injury no. 1 on the chest was only muscle deep. So was injury No. 2 Injury No. 5 had entered left chest cavity through 7th intercostals space and was directed upwards and medially where it involved pericardium and tip of the left ventricle of the hear… Injury no. 5 was sufficient the ordinarly course of nature to cause death. Death was due to shock and haemorrhage consequent to injuries… In my opinion, injuries found on the body of deceased Rakesh were possible with this weapon. I had also made sketch of the said weapon along with P.M. report which is Ex.PW9/A which is signed me and is correct. The weapon knife Ex.Pl is taken out. The weapon Ex. Pl shown to me in the court is the name with was produced before me police in sealed parcel at the time P.M. and the injury could be caused with Ex.Pl.” An FIR was registered on the date of incident itself i.e., 28.05.1993, at Police Station, Kashmere Gate, Delhi on the statement of PW-2, the complainant, where she narrated the incident as already stated above. The police after investigation filed the chargesheet against the sole accused, Chandan, under Section 302 IPC. After committal of the case to the Sessions, 18 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The star witness of the prosecution was PW-2, who was the eye- witness. She was put to a lengthy cross-examination by the defence but nothing has come out which may discredit this witness. This witness in her testimony narrates the entire sequence of events as to how the accused stabbed the deceased to death and how she watched from a short distance the act being committed before her, and how all this happened in quick time.

3. The accused, it must be stated here, was caught the sam