SURAJ PAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under S. 379, Cr. P.C. read with S. 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act. Suraj Pal, the appellant (original accused No. 1) along with three others namely Ram Laterey, Anokhey and Ram Saroop, was tried under S. 302/34, IPC for the offence of committing the murder of Surendra Nath, the deceased in this case. They were also tried u/S. 307/34, IPC for causing injuries to Smt. Satyawati, P.W. 2 and Jiwa Ram, P.W. 1. The trial Court acquitted all of them. The State preferred an appeal and the High Court convicted the appellant under S. 302, IPC, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Anokhe accused was convicted under S. 324, IPC. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. The acquittal of the other two accused was confirmed by the High Court. This appeal is confined to the case of Suraj Pal, A-1 only.

(2.) The prosecution case is as follows.

(3.) The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and mainly relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4, who figured as eye-witnesses. When examined under S. 313. Cr. P.C. all the accused denied their participation and pleaded that they were falsely implicated due to enmity. The appellant, however, pleaded alibi and D.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined in support of his plea of alibi. D.W. 1. Ram Singh, Deputy Jailor, District Jail, Fatehgarh produced a register Ex. Kha-3 to prove an entry dated 20-11-74 to show that the appellant went to District Jail, Fatehgarh to meet one Rajendra Kumar an under trial prisoner, D.W. 2. The evidence of D.Ws. land 2 would only at the most show that the appellant visited the jail to see D.W. 2. D. W. 2 conceded that the appellant had no special reason to meet him. The High Court has rightly rejected this evidence in support of plea of alibi holding it to be flimsy. We have also perused the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2 and we do not think that any importance can be attached to the same