Eyewitness testimony and medical corroboration sustained murder conviction, while the alibi defence failed on the evidence.

Three injured eyewitnesses supported by medical evidence established the occurrence, and the appellant was specifically linked to the assault; the post-mortem material also corroborated the prosecution version. On that basis, the High Court's reversal of acquittal and conviction for murder and use of a deadly weapon was found justified. The plea of alibi failed because the defence evidence did not displace the prosecution case once the occurrence and the appellant's role were proved, and the alibi was found false. The conviction was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal and convicting the appellant for murder and causing hurt by a deadly weapon, and whether the plea of alibi deserved acceptance.

Analysis: The occurrence was proved through three injured eye witnesses whose presence at the scene was independently supported by medical evidence. The appellant was assigned a specific role in the assault on the deceased, and the post-mortem material corroborated the ocular version. The plea that he was elsewhere was found unconvincing, as the defence evidence did not displace the prosecution case once it had been established. The Court found no illegality in the appreciation of evidence by the High Court or in its conclusion that the alibi was false.

Conclusion: The conviction recorded by the High Court was upheld and the appellant's challenge failed.

---