JUDGMENT : R.K. GAUBA, J: 1. The appellant stands convicted, as charged, by judgment dated 21st March, 2016 of Court of Sessions for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) upholding the prosecution case that at about 6:15 p.m. on 20th August, 2011 on the terrace above Flat No.C-27/28, Kingsway Camp, Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, he committed the murder of Rajvinder Kaur (the deceased) by intentionally inflicting multiple stab wounds and also having voluntarily caused hurt to Nisha (PW-2) by stabbing her with a sharp cutting instrument (knife). By order on sentence passed by the learned trial judge on 31st March, 2016, sentence of imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- was awarded for offence under Section 302 IPC besides rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 15,000/- for offence under Section 324 IPC. By the appeal at hand, the appellant (convict) seeks to assail both the judgment and the order on sentence. 2. Certain basic facts in the background of the incident which is subject matter of the case and those leading to the conviction, proved at the trial by evidence which is incontrovertible or beyond dispute, may be taken note of at the outset. 3. Rajvinder Kaur (the deceased) was 21 years old unmarried daughter of Shakuntla (PW-6), she being one of the five children born from her wedlock with late Shri Sadhu Singh. PW-6 worked for gain as a midwife in a private hospital and would treat the father of Kuldeep (PW-17) as a foster brother. She statedly lived as a tenant in Flat No.C-10, I.D. Hospital, Kingsway Camp, Delhi, sharing accommodation with PW-17 and rest of his family. Though questions were raised during trial as to the terms on which she was living in the said household, lack of clarity in this regard is not of any consequence in as much as the fact that she was living in Flat No.C-10, I.D. Hospital, Kingsway Camp, Delhi stands proved beyond all doubts. Suraj is another member of the family of PW-17 and lived in Flat No.C-27, I.D. Hospital, Kingsway Camp, Delhi in the same block with his wife Nisha (PW-2). Thus, PW-2 would describe Rajvinder Kaur as her Nanad (sister of the husband) and Shakuntala (PW-6) as Bua (sister of the father). 4. Suraj is another member of the family of PW-17 and lived in Flat No.C-27, I.D. Hospital, Kingsway Camp, Delhi in the same block with his wife Nisha (PW-2). Thus, PW-2 would describe Rajvinder Kaur as her Nanad (sister of the husband) and Shakuntala (PW-6) as Bua (sister of the father). 4. As is indicated by the site plans – rough plan (Ex.PW-4/C) prepared by Sub Inspector Ranbir Singh (PW-4) on the date of the incident and scaled site plan (Ex.PW-5/A) prepared by SI Mahesh Kumar (PW-5) in due course - and other evidence on record, the building where the scene of crime is located is one of the properties within the gated compound of Mahrishi Balmiki Hospital, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi, a facility that falls within the area of beat No.9, Malikpur village of police station Mukherjee Nagar (the police station). These flats are actually staff quarters of ID Hospital. Noticeably, the appellant was a resident, at the relevant point of time, of flat No. D-26, which would be adjoining building within the same complex. As would be further seen from the narration that follows, it is undisputed that the appellant was acquainted with the deceased and also her close relatives and they, in turn, were also familiar with him by name and face. For the present, this conclusion may be rested primarily on the fact that both sides were almost neighbours living in the same staff quarter complex. 5. The testimony of Nisha (PW-2), Shakuntla (PW-6) and Kuldeep (PW-17) revealed that marriage of Rajvinder Kaur had been settled about 10 days prior to the incident. According to PW-6 and PW-17, the appellant had been stalking the deceased for quite some time, presumably so because he was besotted by her. This, according to the prosecution case was one-sided infatuation as the deceased girl was not interested. These witnesses have testified about this having become a cause for concern leading even to complaint with the police and with the mother of the appellant. That there is some substance to the theory is inherent in one of the defences taken by the appellant during trial wherein he would claim that he and the deceased were in love and wanted to marry each other to which her family was opposed. 6. That there is some substance to the theory is inherent in one of the defences taken by the appellant during trial wherein he would claim that he and the deceased were in love and wanted to marry each other to which her family was opposed. 6. Rajvinder Kaur (deceased) and Nisha (PW-2) suffered stab injuries sometime around 6.15 p.m. on 20th August, 2011 on the top terrace floor of the block of staff quarters (which includes Flat No. C-27/28), the former (Rajvinder Kaur) succumbing to the said injuries on the same night. These facts have been proved by evidence which is beyond reproach and may be summarized hereinafter. 7. At 7.00 p.m., a telephonic information was received in the police station through police control room (PCR) about the stabbing of the two girls by a young person which was reduced into writing vide DD No. 30/A (Ex.PW-9/A). Rajvinder Kaur was brought to the casualty of nearby Hindu Rao Hospital (Hospital) by her mother Shakuntla (PW-6) at 7.10 p.m. on 20th August, 2011 whereupon she was examined by Dr. Pankaj Kumar Aggarwal (PW-13) as per Medico Legal Certificate (MLC) , duly proved by him in Court (vide Ex.PW-13/A). The MLC reveals the history of the injuries was given as assault with knife about 30 minutes prior to arrival in the hospital. There were a number of stab wounds. The general condition of the victim was very poor, she being in a state of shock, conscious but drowsy and certified to be unfit for statement. This event was reported to the police station by Head Constable Raj Kumar (PW-8) who was on duty in the hospital and was recorded in DD Entry No. 31/A (Ex.PW-9/B) by Head Constable Arvind Kumar (PW-9), the duty officer. The death summary (Ex.PW-20/J) prepared in the hospital in due course reveals the condition of Rajvinder Kaur deteriorated and she was declared dead at 10.40 p.m. on 20th August, 2011. This was conveyed to the police station at 11.18 p.m. and was recorded by Constable Pushpender (PW-7), the DD writer vide DD No. 63/B (Ex.PW-7/B). The death report (Ex.PW-20/B) prepared by the investigating officer further affirms this fact. 8. Nisha (PW-2) had been brought to the hospital almost on the close heels of Rajvinder Kaur and was examined against MLC (Ex.PW-2/A) by Dr. Latika. The death report (Ex.PW-20/B) prepared by the investigating officer further affirms this fact. 8. Nisha (PW-2) had been brought to the hospital almost on the close heels of Rajvinder Kaur and was examined against MLC (Ex.PW-2/A) by Dr. Latika. The author of the MLC having left the services of the hospital and her presence not being immediately obtainable, the document was proved, with no contest from the defence, by Dr. Arijit Debnath (PW-14) who is acquainted with the writing and signatures of the concerned medical officer. According to this record, Nisha was accompanied by her father-in-law Ram Singh and she having reached hospital casualty at 7.25 p.m. on 20th August, 2011 reported through her father-in-law, the history of her injuries as assault. The examining medical officer found incised wound on the right forearm (4 x 1 cm) besides multiple cuts over the fingers of the left hand with active bleeding. The MLC denotes that sharp edged weapon had been used to inflict injuries suffered by Nisha (PW-2). 9. The prosecution adduced sufficient evidence on record to prove that Rajvinder Kaur had suffered a homicidal death. Keeping aside the ocular testimony for the present, reference needs to be made here only to the post mortem examination report (Ex.PW-11/A) which had been prepared by Dr. M.K. Panigrahi (PW-11) on the basis of autopsy conducted by him on the dead body on 21st August, 2011. The autopsy doctor had found the following external injuries on the dead body:- “1. Surgically stitched stab wound, transversely placed on the anterior chest wall, across the sternum and 2 cm below and medical to both the nipples. On removing the stitches the wound measures 12 cm into 3 cm into chest cavity deep (right side) and is placed in the fourth intercostal space on the right side extending upto 4th intercostals space on the left side across the sternum, the wound was situated on the anterior chest wall 14 cm below the sternal notch and 125 cm above the right heel. Right end of the wound is obtuse and the left end is acute with tailing. The margins of the wound are clean cut. 2. Right end of the wound is obtuse and the left end is acute with tailing. The margins of the wound are clean cut. 2. Surgically stitched stab wound of size 3.8 cm into chest cavity deep (left side) obliquely placed over the 5th left intercostals space of the anterior chest wall, just above the left costal margin and is placed 115 cm above the left heel, and 4.5 cm away from the midline and 23 cm below the left midclavicular line. Margins of the wound are clean cut. The lower end of the wound was acute and upper end was rounded. 3. Surgically stabled wound of size 3 cm into 1 cm into muscle deep present on the anterior abdominal wall, obliquely placed about 95 cm above the left heel and 5.5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline. Margins of the wound was clean cut. Lower end acute and upper end was rounded. The peritoneum underneath was intact. The wound track measures about 3.5 cm long. The direction of the wound was before backwards and from lateral to medical (left to right). 4. Stitched incised wound of size 3 cm into 1 cm, obliquely placed on the medical aspect of ventral part of the left forearm, placed 3.5 cm proximal to the wrist joint (Left) and 21 cm below the medial epicondyle of elbow joint. The margins of wound were clean cut and the wound was superficial in nature. 5. Incised wound of size 1 cm X 1 cm , superficially placed over the left shoulder about 4 cm medial to the tip of the shoulder joint, 18 cm above the left nipple and 145 cm above the left heel. 6. Midline stitched laprotomy would of size 11 cm long present over the anterior abdominal wall and is placed about 16 cm below the xyphisternum, 16 cm above the public symphsis across the umbilicus. The peritoneum underneath was found intact and the wound was not entered into the peritoneal cavity. 7. Stitched intra costal drainage wound of size 2 cm X 1 cm X chest cavity deep present on the right lateral chest wall over the 5th inter costal space in mid axillary line, 12 cm away from right nipple and 13 cm below the axilla. 8. 7. Stitched intra costal drainage wound of size 2 cm X 1 cm X chest cavity deep present on the right lateral chest wall over the 5th inter costal space in mid axillary line, 12 cm away from right nipple and 13 cm below the axilla. 8. Stitched intra costal drainage wound of size 2 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep present on the left lateral chest wall in the 5th inter costal space along the mid axillary line 12 cm away from the left nipple.” 10. The internal examination of the dead body of Rajvinder Kaur had revealed the following:- “Right pleural cavity contents about 1.5 ltrs blood with clots. The left pleural cavity contents about 1.2 ltrs blood with clots. Right lung was collapsed. A penetrating injury of size 3 cm x 1 cm present over the anterior aspect of the lower part of the right upper lobe of the lungs and on the upper part of the right lower lobe where it ends. A penetrating injury of size 3 cm x 1 cm present on the anterior aspect of the lower part of the left lower lobe of the left lung. Track of the external injury no.1:- After piercing the subcutaneous tissues it cut across the intercostal muscles and vessels in the 4th right inter costal space which measures about 7 cm x 0.5 cm, communicates with the right pleural cavity and extends from the right end of the wound upto right margins of the sternum along lower border of the right 4th rib. Then it passes through the anterior aspect of the lower part of the right upper lobe of the right lung leaving behind a wound of size 3 cm x 1 cm and then passes through the upper part of the lower lobe of the right lung ends in the lung parenchyma. The track of the wound measures about 12 cm long. Directions of the track was from before backwards and from lateral to medial. The vessels, lung tissues and bronchioles along the track of the wound were also cut. The pleural right cavity contains about 1.5 ltrs blood. Track of external injury no.2:- After piercing the subcutaneous tissues it cut across the inter costal muscles, vessels and nerves in the 5th left inter costal space and enters into the left pleural cavity. The vessels, lung tissues and bronchioles along the track of the wound were also cut. The pleural right cavity contains about 1.5 ltrs blood. Track of external injury no.2:- After piercing the subcutaneous tissues it cut across the inter costal muscles, vessels and nerves in the 5th left inter costal space and enters into the left pleural cavity. Then it passes through the lung parenchyma of the left lung on its anterior aspect of the lower part of the lower lobe. The vessels, lung tissues and bronchioles along the track of the wound were cut. Left pleural cavity contains about 1.2 ltrs of blood. The track of the wound measures about 8 cm long. The directions of the track was backwards and from medial to lateral.” 11. The autopsy doctor gave the final opinion as under:- “The cause of death of the deceased is due to hemorrhage and shock consequent to the injuries. All the injuries were antemortem in nature. External injury no. 1 to 3 could have been caused by forceful thrust of a sharp pointed weapon/object. External injury no.4 and 5 could have been caused by sharp edge of a weapon/object. External injury no.6 to 8 have been surgically performed as a therapeutic measures. External injury no.1 and 2 individually and combinedly are sufficient cause in ordinary course of nature. Time since death at the time of Post-mortem examination is about 14 hours as per hospital record.” 12. During the course of arguments, a feeble attempt was made to submit that the death of Rajvinder Kaur could be suicidal. This argument must be mentioned and rejected here itself. The injuries noted in the autopsy report could by no stretch of imagination be self-inflicted. No such case was even attempted to be built during the course of trial, particularly during the evidence of the doctor who had conducted the post mortem examination. 13. It was the prosecution case that the advances of appellant having been repelled, particularly by deceased Rajvinder Kaur, her marriage having been settled elsewhere, the appellant was deeply disturbed and had come to the top terrace floor of the building where Rajvinder Kaur was living with the family on 20th August, 2011 at or about 06:15 p.m. and assaulted her with knife (Ex.P-2) in the presence of her mother Shakuntla (PW-6). 14. The first information report (FIR) was registered (vide Ex. 14. The first information report (FIR) was registered (vide Ex. PW9/C) at 10.05 p.m. on 20.08.2011 on the basis of rukka (Ex. PW4/B) sent by SI Ranbir Singh (PW-4) from the scene of crime at 9.57 p.m. of which the statement (Ex. PW6/A) of Shakuntla (PW-6) forms a part. It may be added that SI Ranbir Singh (PW-4), the first investigating officer (IO) of the case, had reached the place upon being entrusted with the task of inquiry into DD No.30A (Ex. PW9/A) referred to earlier. According to the version of Shakuntla (PW-6) in the FIR, the appellant had extended threats to Rajvinder Kaur about 10 days prior to the incident to the effect that if she were not to be his life partner, he would not let her get married with any person and upon this information being conveyed by Rajvinder Kaur to her mother (Shakuntla), the mother of the appellant (Maya Devi) had been called and informed about the conduct. It was stated in the FIR that both the mother and brother of the appellant, who had also come avisiting, had tendered an apology and had given assurances that the appellant would not pursue Rajvinder Kaur any further. Shakuntla (PW-6) informed the police in the FIR that on the fateful evening, she along with Rajvinder Kaur had gone to the top terrace of the building to check on the overhead water tank at which stage the appellant had come there and attacked Rajvinder Kaur with a knife uttering words to the effect that he would not spare her and further that if she could not be his, she would not be of anyone. Shakuntla (PW-6) reported that she had raised an alarm upon hearing which Nisha (PW-2) had rushed upstairs and tried to intervene but the appellant attacked her as well with knife causing injuries on the person of Nisha who resultantly fell in the staircase. 15. Both Shakuntla (PW-6) and Nisha (PW-2) deposed at the trial affirming the abovementioned sequence of events leading to the stab injuries suffered by Rajvinder Kaur (due to which she died) and Nisha (PW-2) herself. The depositions of the two witnesses substantially corroborate each others word. 15. Both Shakuntla (PW-6) and Nisha (PW-2) deposed at the trial affirming the abovementioned sequence of events leading to the stab injuries suffered by Rajvinder Kaur (due to which she died) and Nisha (PW-2) herself. The depositions of the two witnesses substantially corroborate each others word. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, has argued that given the manner in which Shakuntla (PW-6) has narrated the sequence in the court, Nisha (PW-2) could not have been a witness to the fatal assault on the person of Rajvinder Kaur. Before the arguments urged in this context are taken up, it is proper to take note of other evidence adduced by the prosecution including, crucially, what has come up as res gestae. 16. Vijay Kumar (PW-1) another resident of the adjoining block (flat no.D-4) was strolling outside his house when he heard the noise coming from the side of C Block and saw a boy running away after inflicting knife blows to two girls. He is the person who gave the information to PCR by making a call on phone no. 100 which, evidently, resulted in DD No.30A being recorded in the police station. It is, however, clear from his testimony that he was not a witness to the sequence and his information would be based on what he may have gathered from the people who had collected. 17. Phool Singh (PW-16) is a resident of flat no.C-28 located in the same block where the house of the victim and the scene of crime are located. According to the prosecution case, he and Prince Chauhan (PW-18), resident of flat no.D-6, in the adjoining building within the same compound, were near the large park located in front of the said building. At the relevant point of time, Constable Neeraj (PW-3) was posted in the local police station and was on patrolling duty in the local beat covering the complex housing the staff quarters of I.D. Hospital in the evening hours of 20.08.2011. The duty assigned to him was logged at 5.50 p.m. vide DD No.48B (Ex. PW7/A) by constable Pushpender (PW-7), the daily diary writer. The duty assigned to him was logged at 5.50 p.m. vide DD No.48B (Ex. PW7/A) by constable Pushpender (PW-7), the daily diary writer. According to the evidence of PW-3, he was entering the gate of the compound where the staff quarters are located in the course of his patrolling duty at about 6.30 p.m. Both Phool Singh (PW-16) and Prince Chauhan (PW-18) testified that they had heard noise raised by some ladies, per PW-18 it being in the nature of alarm to seek help (bachao bachao). Both of them deposed that they had seen a young person coming down the staircase of that block in fast speed with an open knife in hand running away. Phool Singh (PW-16) identified the appellant as the person who had been seen by him running away with knife in hand and being apprehended by a police official at the gate of the I.D. hospital. Constable Neeraj (PW-3) clarified during cross-examination that he was approaching the scene from the opposite direction and affirmed that he had caught hold of the appellant after some chase and snatched the knife from his hands. 18. Prince Chauhan (PW-18) after having testified about having noticed the person running out of the ‘C’ Block staircase with an open knife stopped short of saying more. He would not corroborate the word of Phool Singh (PW-16), or Constable Neeraj (PW-3), about the identity or as to the role of the police official in apprehending or relieving the person of the knife. It may, however, be noted at this stage that when SI Ranbir Singh (PW-4) had reached the place of occurrence immediately after being entrusted with inquiry into DD no.30A, he was first met by Constable Neeraj (PW-3) who had presented the appellant in custody informing him about the sequence of events leading to he being apprehended with blood stained knife. This fact was mentioned by SI Ranbir Singh (PW-4) in the rukka which he sent for registration of FIR at 9.57 p.m. after first paying a visit to the hospital to collect the copies of the MLCs and ascertaining the status of the two victims and recording the statement of Shakuntla (PW-6) to set the law into motion. 19. During the course of investigation that followed, after the registration of the FIR, among other steps, the knife (Ex. P-1) was formally seized as per seizure memo (Ex. 19. During the course of investigation that followed, after the registration of the FIR, among other steps, the knife (Ex. P-1) was formally seized as per seizure memo (Ex. PW3/B) to which Constable Neeraj (PW-3) and Kuldeep (PW-17), brother of the deceased, who had by that time arrived, are attesting witnesses. The knife was seized after its sketch (Ex. PW3/A) had been prepared and it had been put in a parcel duly sealed. Since some arguments have been raised in this regard, it may be noted that the sealed parcel containing the knife (Ex. P1) was duly deposited in the Malkhana of the police station on the same date as per entry in the store room register (ex. PW23/A) proved by the Malkhana official. 20. The learned trial court has found the evidence of Constable Neeraj (PW-3) and Phool Singh (PW-16) trustworthy to uphold the prosecution case that the appellant had been seen rushing downstairs from out of the ‘C’ block after the occurrence carrying the blood stained knife (Ex. P1) in his hand and thus being apprehended on the spot. The testimony of PW-16 about his attention being drawn towards the appellant rushing downstairs on hearing the cries of a woman for help has also been accepted as credible. 21. According to the evidence, which is not contested, the appellant was arrested at 10.50 p.m. on 20.08.2011 vide arrest memo (Ex. PW3/C) after personal search (vide Ex. PW3/D) after registration of the FIR. Immediately after the arrest, he was taken to Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, Delhi where he was medically examined as per MLC (Ex. PW25/A) by Dr. Shailesh. Since Dr. Shailesh was a junior resident, then working under the supervision of Dr. Gopal Krishna (PW-25) and since he had left the services of the hospital and his presence could not be immediately secured, Dr. Gopal Krishna (PW-25) who is acquainted with his writing and signatures proved the MLC of the appellant. The deposition of Dr. Gopal Krishna (PW-25), read alongside the said MLC (Ex. PW25/A) shows that after the medical examination (which revealed number of scars of old wounds though no fresh injury), his clothes were sealed and handed over to the investigating officer. The MLC mentions the wearing apparel as “cloth”. SI Ranbir Singh (PW-4) and Constable K. Radha Krishan (PW-22) who was accompanying the former has proved the seizure memo (Ex.