JUDGMENT 1. Two young persons, namely Vikas Verma (P.W.1), aged 24 years, and Amit Khandelwal (P.W.2), aged 19 years, who reside in nearby vicinity of the place of occurrence, with utmost bravery apprehended the two present appellants near the spot, close to time of occurrence. At the time of apprehension, the present two appellants made an extra-judicial confession, which form part of the FIR by stating that they have murdered Surendra Mandal on the asking of Ram Prakash Singh, acquitted accused, who had hired them for commission of the offence. 2. In the context of above, we will notice the facts. 3. The appellants, Dinesh Kumar Singh S/o. Devi Singh and Ajay Kumar Singh S/o. Jogendra Singh, have preferred the present Jail appeal to assail the impugned judgment dated 14.6.2005 rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track No. 2), Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby they were convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and vide a separate order of even date, were sentenced to life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 4. Criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of the FIR (Ex.P.1) lodged by Vikas Verma (P.W.1). 5. In the FIR it was stated that S.S. Tower, Dhamani Market Gali, near Chowkari Modi Khana, is owned by one Smt. Reeta Bhargava. From last 5-6 years, one Surendra Singh Bihari was residing there. On 10.8.2003 at about 9.00 P.M. he (Vikas Verma) and Chhotu (Amit) whose house is opposite to S.S. Tower heard shrieks of "Bachao-Bachao" from S.S. Tower. Witnesses came running to the spot. Immediately it was seen by them that two persons after raising the shutter, were coming out and their cloths were stained with blood. On suspicion, Amit (P.W.2) apprehended one of the assailants. Another assailant ran away and was chased by the first informant, Vikas Verma (P.W.1). After some distance, he was apprehended. After apprehending the accused, the witnesses saw that Surendra Singh was lying in a pool of blood. As per first informant, somebody had caused his death by giving knife blows. Witnesses confronted the assailants who were apprehended at spot and they disclosed their names as Ajay Kumar and Dinesh. After some distance, he was apprehended. After apprehending the accused, the witnesses saw that Surendra Singh was lying in a pool of blood. As per first informant, somebody had caused his death by giving knife blows. Witnesses confronted the assailants who were apprehended at spot and they disclosed their names as Ajay Kumar and Dinesh. They further disclosed that they have committed murder of Surendra Singh as they were sent by Ram Prakash Singh after inducement was extended to them that they will be paid handsomely. 6. The aforesaid FIR was investigated. A report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. The said report along with the accused, was committed by the court of concerned Magistrate to the court of Sessions and was entrusted for trial to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track No. 2), Jaipur City, Jaipur. 7. The appellants were charged on 20.8.2004 by the trial court for offence under Section 120B IPC substantively and also for offence under Section 302 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 8. The prosecution commenced its evidence. 9. Vikas Verma appeared as P.W.1 and reiterated as what was stated by him in the FIR. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he was unarmed. He also admitted that public had not gathered there when they reached spot and apprehended the accused. He further admitted that later his neighbours were also inquiring from the accused. However, this witness could not disclose names of the neighbours. In cross-examination, no dent has been caused by the defence to doubt the statement made by the witness in examination-in-chief. Amit Khandelwal (P.W.2) not only corroborated the statement of P.W.1, Vikas Verma, but also testified on the same lines. Reeta Bhargava (P.W.3), owner of the building, stated that Surendra Mandal, the deceased, was working as watchman and Ram Prakash Singh, acquitted accused, had also remained with her as a servant for 15-20 years. P.W.4, Modholal, had taken photographs of the spot. He proved photographs (Ex.P.5 to P.10) along with negatives (Ex.P.11 to P.16). 10. P.W. 5, Shyam Sundar Patel, had attested the site plan made by the police and also recovery of two knifes found at the spot. Prabhu Dayal (P.W.6) was posted as Head Constable and was in-charge of Malkhana. He was examined to prove the link evidence. Dhyani Mandal (P.W.7) had attested Panchyatnama (Ex.P.26). 10. P.W. 5, Shyam Sundar Patel, had attested the site plan made by the police and also recovery of two knifes found at the spot. Prabhu Dayal (P.W.6) was posted as Head Constable and was in-charge of Malkhana. He was examined to prove the link evidence. Dhyani Mandal (P.W.7) had attested Panchyatnama (Ex.P.26). Ramchandra Mandal (P.W.8) and Ramsheesh Mandal (P.W.9) had identified the dead body at the time of inquest. P.W.10, Aziz Umrao Khan, who was a witness to recovery, had turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. Sri Mohan, ASI, (P.W.11) had initially investigated the case. Constable, Ram Gopal (P.W.12) had carried sealed packets from Malkhana to Forensic Science Laboratory. Santosh Kumar Mandal (P.W.13) and Sanjay Mandal (P.W.14) had received the dead body of Surendra Mandal vide receipt (Ex.P.29). P.W.15, Dr. P.C. Vyas, had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Surendra Mandal on 12.8.2003. He had found 41 injuries on the person of the deceased. As per the witness, cause of death was shock due to the injuries caused. P.W.16, Mahendra Singh, being Investigating Officer, had proved various facets of investigation. P.W.17, Jitendra Kumar Sharma, had attested the arrest memos (Ex.P.33, P.34 and P.37) and the recovery memos (Ex.P.35 and P.36). Thereafter prosecution closed its evidence. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the charges leveled against them and pleaded false implication. 11. In defence, Rekha Devi, wife of acquitted accused Ram Prakash, was examined as D.W.1. Since there is no challenge to the acquittal of Ram Prakash, we need not notice the testimony of Rekha Devi (D.W.1). 12. Shri Yogesh Singhal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as Amicus Curiae by putting lot of hard work very eloquently, has made an attempt, to persuade us, to disbelieve the testimony of two eye witnesses, Vikas Verma (P.W.1) and Amit Khandelwal (P.W.2). However, during the course of arguments the learned counsel has not denied that both the witnesses were residing near the place of occurrence and were neighbours. However, the learned counsel has assailed the evidence on the ground that number of persons who were also residing in thickly populated locality and were available, have not been examined by the prosecution. However, during the course of arguments the learned counsel has not denied that both the witnesses were residing near the place of occurrence and were neighbours. However, the learned counsel has assailed the evidence on the ground that number of persons who were also residing in thickly populated locality and were available, have not been examined by the prosecution. The learned counsel, by reading the statement of Vikas Verma (P.W.1), has referred to the statement made by him that many other persons were attracted to the spot and were also making inquiry. The learned counsel has submitted that it was for the investigating agency to note their names so that they could be called for ascertaining truthfulness of two witnesses examined by the prosecution. 13. Shri Singhal has further stated that though the cloths worn by the accused were sent to the serologist, yet blood group on the clothes has not been ascertained and merely because the serologist had found cloths to be stained with human blood, this circumstance cannot be construed against the accused. Shri Singhal has also vehemently urged that Vikas Verma (P.W.1) and Amit Khandelwal (P.W.2) cannot be termed as eye-witnesses. At the most, they are witnesses to extra-judicial confession and since extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence, we should ignore the same for consideration. He has further stated that recovery of weapon has not been proved by the prosecution and arrest memo was made on the next date. 14. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. 15. Vikas Verma (P.W.1) and Amit Khandelwal (P.W.2) have impeccable credentials. They cannot be termed as interested witnesses. They have no animosity so far as the present appellants are concerned. Arrest of the accused at the spot is a material fact and is a clincher presence of the two witnesses and their deposition is qualified by unity of time, space and action, i.e. immediate to the occurrence on hearing a noise, witnesses were attracted to the spot. They saw two persons by lifting the shutter, coming out from the premises, having cloths stained with blood. Immediately accused were apprehended. At that time witnesses had seen Surendra Singh alias Mandal, deceased, lying in a pool of blood. They saw two persons by lifting the shutter, coming out from the premises, having cloths stained with blood. Immediately accused were apprehended. At that time witnesses had seen Surendra Singh alias Mandal, deceased, lying in a pool of blood. Accused disclosed their names and had admitted causing murder by stating that they were hired as assailants by the acquitted accused, Ram Prakash Singh. According to us, these facts prove the case of the prosecution to the hilt and all other arguments being ancillary shall be of no significance. True it is that blood group upon the cloths recovered has not been ascertained. Recovery of weapon has not been proved as it ought to be, but totality of the circumstances is such that we shall place implicit reliance upon the testimony of the two witnesses, namely Vikas Verma (P.W.1) and Amit Khandelwal (P.W.2), especially when their evidence is free from blemish of contradictions, improvements or discrepancies. We appreciate the conduct of the witnesses to apprehend the assailants and also reject the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding non-examination of other persons, taking note of the fact that in present day people avoid to involve themselves in the affairs of others. Therefore, non-joining of other residents of the locality is immaterial. 16. As a result of above discussion, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. However, we appreciate the valuable effort made by Mr. Yogesh Singhal, the learned Amicus Curiae, who, in a bad case, had put his best to advance meaningful arguments by rendering due assistance. *******