The only evidence relied on by the appellant is a statement made by one of the prosecution witnesses, namely, Mahabir P. W. 12 , who stated that he had seen the appellant Thakurprasad at the meeting at Kundah.
Both the Courts below rejected the plea of alibi.
It is number even referred to in the grounds of appeal to the High Court.
Reliance was also placed by the appellant on the fact that his name had number been mentioned in the first information report.
Both the Courts also came to the companyclusion that even if the appellant Thakurprasad had attended the meeting at Kundah as spoken to by Mahabir P. W. 12 that did number militate against his being also present at and having taken part in the occurrence at Paoni.
R. Das, J. The appellant Thakurprasad along with seven other persons was sent up for trial on a charge under Section 302/149, Penal Code, for having on 11 11 1950 between 9 and 10 a.m. at Mouza Paoni in Tehsil Mungeli of District Bilaspur in the State of Madhya Pradesh murdered one Nem Singh who was a companysharer of the appellant in the Malguzari of Mauza Paoni.
At the trial Thakurprasad took up a plea of alibi alleging that at the time of the occurrence he was number at Mauza Paoni but was attending a meeting of Malguzars called at Mauza Kundah which is about nine miles away from Mauza Paoni.
This point does number appear to have been pressed before the lower Courts.
