Mr. S. D. Pandit, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT Prem Singh s/o Mannu Singh, resident ofe-083, Jahangir Puri stands convicted for the offence under Section 302 read withsection 34 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment forlife by the Additional Sessions Judge of Delhi in Session s case No. 429/88 on 23/09/1988. ( 2 ). The case of the prosecution is that one Ashok had fired at Lakshmi Kanttiwari some days prior to the incident in question which took place on 7/10/1986 at about 5. 15 a. m. Shri Lakshmi Kant Tiwari had a suspicion thatdeceased Jagatbir Singh was helping Ashok. Therefore,on 4/10/1986 Lakshmi Kantiwari had told Jagatbir Singh s brotherp. W. 7 Munni Dev that the activities of deceased Jagatbir Singh in helping ofashok were not at all proper and if he continued the same they would have avery bad result. ( 3 ). On 7/10/1986 at about 5. 15 a. m. Jagatbir Singh was going alongwith his brother, Public Witness 7, Munni Dev in order to attend his duties in Ayodhyatextiles Mills. When they were so going on Bhagat Singh Road and had reachednear fodder shop in Kewal Park, the accused, Lakshmi Kant Tiwari and onebharmanand came there and they detained Jagatbir Singh and Lakshmi Kanttiwari asked Jagatbir Singh as to why he was helping his enemies Ashok andsudhir and gave abuses to him. Jagatbir Singh denied his allegations that he washelping his enemies Ashok and Sudhir. Thereupon Lakshmi Kant said that hemust be finished. Thereupon accused Prem Singh caught hold of Jagatbir Singhand Lakshmi Kant took out a knife and started giving blows of the same tojagatbir Singh. Bharmanand took out revolver and prevented P. W. 7 Munni Devfrom helping his brother. After attacking Jagatbir Singh all the three assailantstook to their heels and started running away. When Public Witness 7, Munni Dev triedto chase them, Bharmanand fired a shot at him and thus they managed to runaway. ( 4 ). One Saroj Devi gave information to the police on phone. Then the policewent there and they collected injured Jagatbir Singh who was lying on the roadin injured condition and removed him to Hindu Rao Hospital but when he wasadmitted in the hospital he was not in a position to make a statement and withina short time he expired. One Saroj Devi gave information to the police on phone. Then the policewent there and they collected injured Jagatbir Singh who was lying on the roadin injured condition and removed him to Hindu Rao Hospital but when he wasadmitted in the hospital he was not in a position to make a statement and withina short time he expired. S. I. Dev Dutt of Adarsh Nagar Police Station recordedthe statement of Public Witness 7, Munni Dev and then started investigation in the matter. He arrested the present accused on the next day and on the completion of thenecessary investigation he sent the charge sheet against the present appellantalone as the other two accused Lakshmi Kant Tiwari and Bharmanand were nottraceable and were declared proclaimed offender. ( 5 ). A charge was framed against the present appellant under Section 302read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessionsjudge. The appellant has pleaded not guilty of the charge. ( 6 ). In order to prove the case against the present appellant the prosecutionhad examined in all 21 witnesses including Public Witness 7, Munni Dev. Out of 21 witnessesp. W. 7 Munni Dev is the only eye witness and the direct witness to connect theappellant with the offence alleged against him. The Trial Court accepted theevidence of the said eye witness and found that his evidence was supported byother circumstantial evidence on record and he therefore came to the conclusionthat the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond doubt. Heconsequently held that the appellant is guilty of the offence under Section 302read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. ( 7 ). It is vehemently urged before us by the learned Counsel for the appellantthat the Trial Court ought not to have accepted the evidence of Public Witness 7, Munnidev. It is further submitted that Public Witness 7, Munni Dev is the real brother of thedeceased thus he was an interested witness and Trial Court ought not to haverelied on the evidence of Public Witness 7. There is no dispute of the fact that a prosecution case against the present appellant rests on the evidence of P. W. 7, Munnidev. It is also an admitted fact that Public Witness 7, Munni Dev is the real brother ofdeceased and he is thus interested in the deceased. There is no dispute of the fact that a prosecution case against the present appellant rests on the evidence of P. W. 7, Munnidev. It is also an admitted fact that Public Witness 7, Munni Dev is the real brother ofdeceased and he is thus interested in the deceased. But merely because Public Witness 7,munni Dev is related to deceased and was interested in deceased it could not besaid that his evidence must be thrown away. It is by now very well settled thatmerely because the prosecution witness happened to be related to the deceasedor interested in deceased his evidence could not be rejected. What the lawexpects in such a case is that the evidence of such a witness must be scrutinizedvery scrupulously and carefully before accepting the same. Therefore bearingthis aspect in mind we proceed to consider the material on record as to whetherthe learned trial Judge was justified in accepting the evidence of Munni Dev ornot. ( 8 ). The prosecution has examined Public Witness 6, Dr. L. T. Ramani. From the evidence of Dr. L. T. Ramani and the post mortem report it is quite clear that deceased Jagatbir Singh had sustained 11 injuries including five incised wounds. The medical evidence further shows that there was injury to the loops of thesmall intestine and there was also a cut to the left kidney and those injuries haveresulted into death. Dr. L. T. Ramani has also deposed that those injuries foundby him were in the ordinary course of nature sufficient to cause death of thedeceased, individually as well as jointly. The evidence of Dr. Ramani has goneunchallenged. Therefore, in the circumstances the Trial Court was quite justifiedin coming to the conclusion that the deceased Jagatbir Singh has met withhomicidal death. ( 9 ). It is the case of the prosecution that on that fateful day on 7. 10. 1986 atabout 5. 15 a. m. deceased Jagatbir Singh followed by Public Witness 7, Munni Dev wereproceeding to Ayodhya Textiles Mills and at that time the appellant and theabsconding accused Lakshmi Kant Tiwari and Bharmanand came in the oppositedirection and on seeing Jagatbir, Jagatbir was questioned by Lakshmi Kant as towhy he was helping his enemies Ashok and Sudhir and thereupon Jagatbir hadreplied that he had no connection with them and thereupon Lakshmi Kant hadabused Jagatbir and said that he must be finished. It is his further claim thatthereupon the accused/appellant before us had caught hold of Jagatbir Singhand then Lakshmi Kant Tiwari had given blows of the knife in his hand onvarious parts of the body of Jagatbir Singh. When he tried to save his brotherhe was threatened by the absconding accused Bharmanand by taking out therevolver and pointing out the same towards him and threatened that if he comeahead he would be shot dead and therefore he could not help his brother andafter his brother fell down, Lakshmi Kant Tiwari, Bharmanand and the presentaccused took to their heels and they ran away. ( 10 ). It is very pertinent to note that as per the evidence of Public Witness 7, Munnidev, the present appellant Prem Singh had no enmity with Jagatbir Singh. P. W. 7, Munni Dev has further deposed that on 4. 10. 1986 Lakshmi Kant Tiwari hadmet him and he had told that his brother Jagatbir Singh should not help hisenemies Ashok and Sudhir. There is absolutely no evidence on record to inferor hold that the present appellant Prem Singh had any friendship with absconding accused Lakshmi Kant. The evidence on record shows that Lakshmi Kantand other absconding accused Bharmanand were friends but there is no evidenceon record to show that this appellant has any friendship with absconding accused. Therefore. . in the circumstances, the claim of Munni Dev regarding thepresence of the present accused alongwith absconding accused on that morningas well as further claim of appellant participating in the assault of the deceasedbecome somewhat doubtful. No doubt the claim of the Public Witness 7, Munni Dev aboutdeceased having sustaind the stab blows of knife is supported by the medicalevidence on record. The evidence further shows beyond doubt that abscondingaccused Lakshmi Kant had the motive to assault the deceased but merely becauseof the same his claim against the present appellant could not be accepted. Weare not considering or appreciating the evidence of this witness Public Witness 7, Munnidev, as regards the absconding accused, we are restricting ourselves only to thequestion as to whether the said witness Munni Dev could be relied or his evidence could be accepted as against the present appellant. ( 11 ). As per the version of this P. W. 7, Munni Dev the accused/appellantprem Singh had caught hold of Jagatbir Singh and then deceased was given knifeblows by Lakshmi Kant Tiwari. ( 11 ). As per the version of this P. W. 7, Munni Dev the accused/appellantprem Singh had caught hold of Jagatbir Singh and then deceased was given knifeblows by Lakshmi Kant Tiwari. It has come in evidence that Jagatbir Singh wasquite stout and strong. Therefore, in the circumstances, if the version of thiswitness was true and correct then in the natural Court of events some bloodwould have fallen on the clothes of the present appellant after deceased hadsustained injuries. Dr. L. T. Ramani, Public Witness 6 has discribed the incise woundswhich are discribed at SI. No. 6 to 9 as under: "6. Incised wound 1" X X ? present obliquely on the right lumberarea of abdomen. Injury was spindle shaped having regular margins. 7. An incised wound 1- X Z ? size present obliquely on the leftlumber area at the level of umbilicus. Margins were regular andwound was spindle shaped, loops of small bowls were protrudedout from the wound. 8. An incised wound 1-" X X ? present transversly on the left sideback of chest at Thorasic - 8 level behind posterioraxillary/line. Medial end of the injury was more acutely cut. 9. There were two incised wound each measuring 1-14" X placed inone line half an inch apart on the left side back of the chest. Theouter ends of both the injuries were acute than the medial ends. " ( 12 ). In view of the above position of the injuries found by Dr. L. T. Ramanithe claim of this witness, P. W. 7 that this appellant Prem Singh had caught holdof the deceased Jagatbir Singh from his back and that absconding accused Lakshmikant Tiwari had given him blows by his knife does not seem to be at all probablebecause five incised wounds were found by Dr. Ramani on the backside of thedeceased. ( 13 ). It must be mentioned that if the version of this witness was true andcorrect then some blood would have fallen on the cloth of the appellant Premsingh and the blood-stained clothes of the appellant would have been recoveredand produced by the prosecution. The learned Trial Court has observed that theblood-stained clothes might have been washed out by the appellant as there wassufficient time since the time of murder and till the arrest of the appellant. The learned Trial Court has observed that theblood-stained clothes might have been washed out by the appellant as there wassufficient time since the time of murder and till the arrest of the appellant. Thelearned trial Judge forgets that even after washing of such clothes the blood-stains can be detected by the Chemical Analyser. In the instant case it is not aclaim of the prosecution that the accused/appellant had washed his blood-stainedclothes. ( 14 ). It is the case of P. W. 7, Munni Dev that after his brother fell down heran to his house and informed the inmates of the house as to what had happened. The prosecution has examined his brother Chander Pal, Public Witness 9. But it is verypertinent to note that this witness Chander Pal Public Witness 9 does not say in his examination in chief that Public Witness 7, Munni Dev had come to the house and had told thename of the present appellant as the person who had caught hold of deceasedjagatbir at the time he was assaulted by the other accused. Therefore, the claimof the witness, P. W. 7 that he had gone to the house and had informed about theincident in question and particularly the participation of the present appellant inquestion is not supported by any material on record. ( 15 ). The evidence led by the prosecution of P. W. I, Rameshwar and P. W. 2,a. J. Seth who are respectively Time Keeper and Factory Manager of the Ayodhyatextiles Mills show that the appellant had reported on his duty on the day ofincident i. e. on 7. 10. 1986 at 6. 00 a. m. and he was in the factory till about 8. 00 a. m. It is not probable that the appellant would go and report his duty at 6. 00 a. m. after participating in such a crime as alleged by the prosecution. ( 16 ). The evidence on record further shows that as a matter of fact the information of the incident of assault in question was first given on phone by Public Witness 20,saroj Devi. Her evidence shows that a man and a woman came to her house andthey had told her that a murder had taken place and they wanted to givetelephonic messege to the police and therefore she herself had given informationto the police. Her evidence shows that a man and a woman came to her house andthey had told her that a murder had taken place and they wanted to givetelephonic messege to the police and therefore she herself had given informationto the police. Her evidence further shows that at that time a large number ofpersons had collected at the place of incident. It is very pertinent to note that shedoes not say that this Munni Dev had come to her house. Then her evidencefurther shows that incident had taken place in the public street and many peoplewere present there but no independent witness is coming forth to support theclaim of P. W. 7, Munni Dev as regards the participation of the present appellantin question. It is very pertinent to note that no body is coming forth to supportthe claim of Public Witness 7, Munni Dev that he had raised an alarm and on the hearingof his alarm they had gone at the place of offence and found deceased Jagatbirsingh lying in the injured condition there. ( 17 ). It must be further mentioned here that P. W. 14, A. S. I. Raj Singh, had goneto the spot after getting the telephonic message and there he had found theinjured Jagatbir Singh lying on the road. He had further deposed that the deceasedhad disclosed the name of Lakshmi Kant Tiwari but he had not disclosed thename of other two persons. The evidence of Public Witness 14, A. S. I. Raj Singh is theevidence regarding the dying declaration of the deceased and in the said dyingdeclaration deceased had not named the present appellant. Therefore that circumstance also makes the claim of P. W. 7, Munni Dev against the present appellant,prem Singh doubtful. ( 18 ). It is an admitted fact that present appellant is working in Ayodhyatextiles Mills. This witness, Public Witness 7, Munni Dev is also working in the said Mills. It has come in evidence that there are frections of workers and worker s Unionin the said Ayodhya Textiles Mills. Munni Dev himself has admitted that thereare 12 unions of workers in the Mill but he showed his ignorance that the presentappellant was the leader of a union of that mill. It has come in evidence that there are frections of workers and worker s Unionin the said Ayodhya Textiles Mills. Munni Dev himself has admitted that thereare 12 unions of workers in the Mill but he showed his ignorance that the presentappellant was the leader of a union of that mill. Therefore, when the witness isshowing his ignorance about the accused being the leader of one of the Unionand when he is not making a positive statement that accused is not a leader ofany Union the claim made by the accused/appellant that he has been falselyinvolved could not be said to be improbable or unbelieveable. ( 19 ). It was vehemently urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant thatthe conduct of P. W. 7, Munni Dev was not natural as he did not go to rescue hisbrother but if the evidence of Public Witness 7 is correctly read it would be clear that it ishis claim that he wanted to help his brother but he was given threat by pointingout a revolver and therefore, he could not go ahead to help his brother. Thatevidence clearly shows the reason as to why he could not go ahead to rescue hisbrother as his brother Jagatbir Singh was being stabbed and earlier when he waswarned by accused twice on 4. 10. 1986 that his brother would not be spared andparticularly when a revolver was stated to be pointed out towards him. So hisconduct in not going ahead to rescue his brother could not be said to be unnatural. ( 20 ). Thus though we are unable to hold that the conduct of P. W. 7, Munnidev was unnatural, yet in view of the above discussed circumstances, we areunable to accept his evidence as regards the participation of the present appellantin the incident in question. There is quite possibility of the appellant beingfalsely implicated in the incident in question on account of the workers grouprivalry but anyway in view of the circumstances stated above we are not preparedto accept the evidence of Munni Dev against the present appellant. In view ofthe circumstances stated above there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt ofthe present appellant. The above stated circumstances create a reasonable doubtin the mind regarding the participation of the present appellant and we thus givebenefit of doubt to the appellant. ( 21 ). In view ofthe circumstances stated above there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt ofthe present appellant. The above stated circumstances create a reasonable doubtin the mind regarding the participation of the present appellant and we thus givebenefit of doubt to the appellant. ( 21 ). But before giving the final order in the matter we would like to makecertain observations regarding the judgment in question. The judgment of Trialcourt shows that the Trial Court has not at all raised any points for determination in his. judgment. We would like to bring to the notice of the learned Trialjudge that his judgment is not in consonance with the provisions of Section354 (1 ) (b) of Code of Criminal Procedure which clearly lays down that everyjudgment shall contain points for determination, the decision thereon and thereasons for decision. The judgment of Trial Court must comply with the saidstatutory provisions. The learned trial Court should also remember that by raisingpoints for determination and then giving finding on the same for the reasonsstated in the judgment makes it easy for him to write the good and properjudgment. That also facilitate the Appellate Court to know and appreciate hisreasoning. ( 22 ). Hence we hold that the present appeal is liable to be allowed and accusedmust be acquitted of the offence with which he was charged. Thus the appeal isallowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the present appellantis set aside. He is acquitted of the offence with which he was charged. His bail bondis cancelled and he is set at liberty forthwith.