JUDGMENT G.N. Ray. J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated September 28, 1979 by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 1979 and Murder Reference No. 2 of 1979 by which death sentence awarded against the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in S.C. No. 32 of 1977 was commuted to life imprisonment and Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 1979 preferred by the appellant against his conviction and sentence u/s 302, I.P.C. and also conviction under Section 326/34 and 324/34 and 452/34, I.P.C. in the said Sessions case was dismissed subject to aforesaid modification of the capital sentence but maintaining the convictions and sentence on other counts. 2. The prosecution case in short is that the appellant Zaffar Mohd and the co-accused Mohd. Ismail came to the shop of Dewan Singh, and father of the deceased Navraj alias Rajan on 30.7.1977 at about 8.30 P.M. and both of them purchased half a kilo of Ghewer (sweet) and ate the same. The price of Ghewer was Rs. 4.50 but they offered to pay Rs. 4.00. The deceased told them that the price of Ghewar being Rs. 4.50 they had demanded the said price. Then both the accused picked up jelabi (sweet) from jalebi thali and started eating them. Dewan Singh asked them not to do so. The accused persons thereafter started scuffling with Dewan Singh. Kishan Dev a neighbouring shopkeeper and Rohtas another son of Dewan Singh and deceased Navraj separated the accused who being enraged left the same after threatening that they would deal with them after some time. At about 9.15 P.M. they again came to shop of Dewan Singh holding open knives and after hurling abuses asked Navraj to come out of the shop by saying that he would be done away with. Immediately one of the accused, a short statured person with shaven head entered the shop and inflicted a knife blow to Navraj which struck his abdomen. Navrajs brother Rohtas then caught hold of the hand of the said assailant by which the knife was held. The second accused then gave a knife blow to Rohtas which struck on his right arm. The said two persons were accompanied by another person who moved forward and tried to hit Rohtas with a lathi. Navrajs brother Rohtas then caught hold of the hand of the said assailant by which the knife was held. The second accused then gave a knife blow to Rohtas which struck on his right arm. The said two persons were accompanied by another person who moved forward and tried to hit Rohtas with a lathi. Dewan Singh then pulled out a bamboo stick from the tarpaulin fixed in front of his shop and gave a lathi blow to the said third person and in that process could ward off the lathi blow of the third person. Being hit on the arm Rohtas lost the grip of the hand of the assailant who hit Navraj. The said assailant then attacked Babu Ram an employee of the shop and inflicted an injury by the knife on the right buttock of Babu Ram. The said persons then went to the shop of Kishan Dev and inflicted a knife injury on his chest. On alarm being raised by Dewan Singh, other persons including Suraj Bhan, Fateh and Yash Pal reached the spot and seeing those persons the assailants ran away towards Azad Railway Station. Suraj Bhan and several persons tried to apprehend them but failed. While running the said persons hit Suraj Bhan with some object which hit him on the head. On receiving telephone message of the incident the duty Officer posted at Police Control Room, recorded the said information and informed the police post Azadpur. The Head Constable on duty to the said Azadpur Polite out post recorded the information and asked the A.S.I. Surat Singh to take necessary action. Surat Singh (P.W. 22) went to the spot along with constable Gian Chand and coming to know that police had arrived by that time and the injured were removed to Hindu Rao Hospital he went there and met Dewan Singh. He came to learn that Rajan alias Navraj was declared dead. Dewan Singh was taken to the place of occurrence and his statement was recorded by Surat Singh. Such statement is Ex. P.A. and the same was sent to police station for registration of a case. S.I. Kartar Singh (P.W. 10) on receipt of the said report registered F.I.R. The other injured Kishan Dev was also declared dead in the hospital and inquests of both the accused were made by the police. Such statement is Ex. P.A. and the same was sent to police station for registration of a case. S.I. Kartar Singh (P.W. 10) on receipt of the said report registered F.I.R. The other injured Kishan Dev was also declared dead in the hospital and inquests of both the accused were made by the police. Inspector Kulpal Rai (P.W. 24) took over the investigation of the case. On getting a secret information that assailants were trying to leave Delhi the police took Fateh Singh, Yash Pal and Suraj Bhan at Inter State Bus Terminus Delhi and being identified by the said persons both the accused were arrested by the police from platform No. 26 of Inter State Bus Terminus along with blood stained clothes. Such clothes were seized by the police. 3. The prosecution examined 24 witnesses including P.W. 1 Dewan Singh, father of the deceased Navraj P.W. 2 Rohtas the brother of the deceased who also received injury by the knife blow P.W. 3 Yashpal a resident of village Barole, P.W. 4 Suraj Bhan who received injury while trying to chase the assailants P.W. 5 Banwari Lal, real brother of deceased Kishan and present at the spot and witnessing the whole occurrence and P.W. 6 Fateh Singh a Government employee who came to take tea at the shop of Dewan Singh and witnessed the occurrence. The eye-witnesses fully corroborated the prosecution case as given by Dewan Singh. It may be noted here that the description of physical appearance of both the accused and about their wearing apparel had been given by the eye-witnesses before the police before the arrest of the said accused and at the time of arrest such description tallied. The accused refused to appear at the test identification parade on the plea that they had been shown to the witnesses. But the learned Additional Sessions Judge has indicated in the judgment that although three eyewitnesses were taken by the police to Inter State Bus Terminus for identifying the accused, Dewan Singh the father of the deceased Navraj and other witnesses had no occasion to see the accused at the time of arrest and there was scope for test identification parade for such witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that the accused persons deliberately avoided the test identification parade on the apprehension that they would be identified by Dewan Singh and others. 4. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that the accused persons deliberately avoided the test identification parade on the apprehension that they would be identified by Dewan Singh and others. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidences of the eye-witnesses and other circumstances inter alia came to the finding, that the commission of crime of murder of Navraj and Kishan and causing grievious hurt to Rohtas and Bahu Ram and also causing other injuries had been clearly established by the witnesses beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly held both the accused guilty under Section 302, I.P.C., 324/34, I.P.C. and 452/34, I.P.C. and considering the gravity of the heineous crime of murder awarded capital sentence against both the accused and sentences of imprisonment of various terms under different counts. On appeal by both the accused the High Court upheld the conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. and convictions for other offences but convicted the death sentence of both the accused to imprisonment for life under Section 302,I.P.C. but upheld sentences imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on other counts. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court inter alia came to the finding that the offences alleged against both the accused had been clearly established by clinching evidence. 5. At the hearing of the appeal Mr. Kohli the learned Senior Counsel strongly contended that the accused Persons were not at all concerned with the commission of offences alleged against them. It has been contended by Mr. Kohli that the accused persons had been advocating against measures being taken for sterilizations to the Muslim community and by that process incurred displeasure of the administration and the police and they had been falsely implicated by the police in the case. Mr. Kohli has contended that the alleged eye - witnesses who are stated to have accompanied the police to Inter State Bus Terminus at the time of alleged arrest of the accused were chance witnesses and had been picked up by the police for false accusation. Mr. Kohli has contended that it is unbelievable that the accused at the risk of being arrested would go to crowded Bus Stand of Inter State Bus Terminus with the blood stained clothes. Mr. Kohli has contended that it is unbelievable that the accused at the risk of being arrested would go to crowded Bus Stand of Inter State Bus Terminus with the blood stained clothes. Any person with little common sense will avoid going to public street with blood stained clothes particularly with the clothes put on at the time of commission of crime, so as to attract attention of others and running the risk of being detected. Accordingly the cock and bull story of the prosecution should be discarded. Mr. Kohli has contended that the accused persons had been arrested by the police in presence of eye-witnesses. In such circumstances the test identification parade was meaningless and was carefully intended by the police to get the accused identified finally by more persons to their disadvantage. In such circumstances the accused had enough justification to refuse to appear in the proposed test identification parade. Mr. Kohli has also submitted that admittedly the accused persons suffered injuries since noted by doctor. Such injuries had been caused by the police by arresting them on false charge. The prosecution has failed to explain the injuries satisfactorily. Mr. Kohli has also submitted that on the basis of identification by the alleged eye-witnesses the accused have been convicted but such identification by chance witnesses does not inspire any confidence and the court should not have placed reliance on such witnesses for convicting the accused on a charge of murder. Mr. Kohli has submitted that it is also not believable that at a market place where there are other shop-keepers and customers, the accused would openly come with challenging mood with open knives and go on inflicting knife injuries on different persons without being apprehended at the spot. The courts below have unfortunately failed to consider the inherent falsity of the prosecution case. He has submitted that in the facts of the case the appellant deserves to be acquitted from the false charges leveled against him. 6. Such contention has, however, been disputed by the learned counsel for the state and it has been contended that the offence of the accused persons had been established by the eye-witnesses beyond all reasonable doubts. It has been clearly established by the evidence of the eye-witnesses that the accused persons were men of desperate character. 6. Such contention has, however, been disputed by the learned counsel for the state and it has been contended that the offence of the accused persons had been established by the eye-witnesses beyond all reasonable doubts. It has been clearly established by the evidence of the eye-witnesses that the accused persons were men of desperate character. They entered the shop of Dewan Singh and did not intend to pay the proper price of the sweet consumed. On demand for proper price, they scuffled with Dewan Singh and ate Jalebi in a defiant mood and left the shop with a threatening note. Both the accused along with another person came back within a short time brandishing knife and challenging the deceased, Navraj. Such action by two desperate accused persons being accompanied by a third man had unnerved the peace-loving shopkeepers and before being apprehended they started inflicting knife blows there by creating further panic at the spot. Because of the suddenness and desperate mood of the assailants, they could not be prevented then and there. When the alarm was raised by Dewan Singh and people present there were attracted by the alarm, the said persons fled from the place and despite being chased, they could not be apprehended. Presumably, the locality was quite well known to them and they could escape through lanes. The learned counsel for the State has contended that it was a market place having shops and the presence of eyewitnesses was quite natural. Apart from the other eye-witnesses who happened to be present at the spot, Dewan Singh father of the deceased, Navraj, his brother Rohtas who himself was injured and the brother of the other deceased. Kishan, were the other eye-witnesses and all of them were likely to be present at the spot. Such witnesses have also proved the commission of crime by the appellant and the co-accused and their evidences stand corroborated by the depositions of other eye-witnesses who happened to be present Some of the eye-witnesses were not related to any of the deceased and they had no occasion to falsely implicate the appellant and the other accused person and both the courts below have rightly not accepted the wild allegation of false implication without any basis. The learned counsel for the State has contended that the accused persons, because of the prompt action taken by the police and giving a hot chase, could not change the clothes when they had been desperately trying to leave Delhi. Being identified by the eye-witnesses, the police could apprehend both the accused persons from the platform of the Inter State Bus Terminus. In the facts of the case, such attempt by the accused persons was not at all unnatural. The evidences of the eye-witnesses have clearly established the said fact and there is no reason to disbelieve them. The learned counsel for the State has contended that both the courts have accepted the prosecution case as fully proved and in the absence of any material inconsistency in the depositions of a number of eye-witnesses, there was no occasion for the courts below to discard the positive evidences given by the eye-witnesses. He has, therefore, submitted that no interference is called for in this appeal and the same should be dismissed. 7. After considering the respective contentions of the learned counsels for the parties and the materials on record of the case we do not see any infirmity in the prosecution case. In the instance case, there were number of eye-witnesses who had witnessed the occurrence and had deposed in a straightforward manner. The place being a market place having shops in the locality, it was quite natural that besides the employees and the relations of both. the deceased other eye-witnesses were also present. The presence of Dewan Singh, the father of the deceased Navraj, Rohtas himself an injured witness and the brother of the deceased, Navraj and the brother of the deceased, Kishan, was quite natural and their presence at the spot cannot be doubted. They have all identified the appellant and the co-accused and have stated that they had committed the crime. J t is not reasonably expected that Dewan Singh and other relations of the two deceased would falsely implicate the accused persons for murdering both the deceased simply at the instance of the police to implicate innocent persons. On the contrary, they would be interested to ensure conviction of the real murderer. J t is not reasonably expected that Dewan Singh and other relations of the two deceased would falsely implicate the accused persons for murdering both the deceased simply at the instance of the police to implicate innocent persons. On the contrary, they would be interested to ensure conviction of the real murderer. Even before the arrest or the appellant and the co-accused from the Inter State Bus Terminus description of their physical appearance and the clothes on their persons had been given by the eyewitnesses to the police and such description also tallied when the accused persons were arrested. The Courts below have given cogent reasons as to why the prosecution case should be accepted and we do not find any justification to take a contrary view. We, therefore, find no substance in this appeal and the same is dismissed. It appears that the appellant was released on bail by an order of this Court dated March 26, 1982. The appellant should, therefore, be taken into custody to serve out the sentence. Appeal dismissed.