- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned judgment and order.
(2.) These appeals, arising out of judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal No.99 of 2004 with Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2004 by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, wherein the finding of guilt of the appellant(s) on the charge for the offences under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for shot 'the Code') read with Section 27 of the Arms Act was held to be proved by the trial court vide its judgment of conviction dated 19.12.2003 and order of sentence dated 22.12.2003 by recording a finding of conviction and sentence for life imprisonment, is affirmed by the High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction after re -appreciation of the evidence on record, are under challenge before this Court urging various legal grounds.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant(s) contended that the findings and reasons recorded by both the courts below are erroneous findings in the absence of proper appreciation of evidence and the finding of guilt is recorded, even though the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellant(s). The second ground urged on behalf of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 2012 is the defence of alibi that the appellant was not present at the scene of occurrence on 30.11.1995. The evidence adduced in support of this plea is deposition of Ramawdhesh Mahton (DW -6), a typist attached to the office of Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Daltenganj, Jharkhand. He produced the Budget file of the said department. He proved Noting dated 30.11.1995 (Ext. 'Kha') in respect of Letter No. 5531 dated 22.11.1995 of the Budget Register. He also produced personal file of Nawal Kumar, Assistant Engineer (Technical) and proved Noting (Ext. Kha/1). However, the same has been ignored by holding that his deposition and the aforesaid documents show that there is no sanctity of such documents which can be manufactured for the purpose of supporting the plea of alibi. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) has invited our attention to the findings and reasons recorded by the trial court to contend that the prosecution witnesses' evidence have not been properly appreciated and the defence evidence in favour of the appellant -Jay Kant Prasad in support of plea of alibi is not properly considered and an erroneous finding is recorded disbelieving the evidence mentioned supra.;