ORDER : 1. The Criminal Appeal Nos. 531-532 of 2009 have been filed by Udai Singh – complainant son of Shri Mehar Chand against the acquittal of Mat Ram Son of Kanhaiya and Uday Singh son of Suraj Bhan. Even though the appellant has died, since notice has been issued, we have heard learned counsel who was earlier appearing for Udai Singh as amicus in support of the said appeal. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 530 of 2009 has been filed by Mukesh Kumar against his conviction under Section 302/149 IPC and sentence to life imprisonment. Criminal Appeal No. 533 of 2009 has been filed by Bhim Singh against his conviction under Section 302/149 IPC and sentence to life imprisonment. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 4. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.07.1995 at 7.00 a.m. Data Ram had gone to his field where accused – Mat Ram, Bhim Singh and Mukesh Kumar and their co-accused assaulted and killed him. In the F.I.R., 26 persons were named and all of them were put to trial. Though initially Mat Ram was not arrayed as accused in the chargesheet, the Court took cognizance against him. The trial Court acquitted 21 accused and convicted the remaining five out of whom four surviving accused, namely, Mukesh Kumar, Bhim Singh, Mat Ram and Udai Singh preferred the appeal before the High Court. The High Court acquitted Mat Ram and Udai Singh but upheld the conviction of Mukesh Kumar and Bhim Singh. 5. The evidence relied upon by the prosecution mainly comprises of eye witnesses' account of PW-2 Ratan Singh S/o Soluram, PW-3 Kaptan S/o Shri Ramji Ram and PW-6 Dashrath. 6. Though eye witnesses have implicated all the four accused in question, in absence of corroboration, Udai Singh was given benefit of doubt by the High Court. Since possibility of over-implication is not ruled out in the present case, the High court rightly adopted cautious approach. Mat Ram was also given benefit of doubt by accepting his plea of alibi in view of evidence of PW-10 Kamlakar Dave, PW-11-Roop Narain and PW-12 Ramesh Chander Sharma, who were employees of the Rajasthan Roadways, Jaipur. 7. As regards appeal of Mukesh Kumar is concerned, we find that there is discrepancy with regard to the role attributed to him and injuries found. 7. As regards appeal of Mukesh Kumar is concerned, we find that there is discrepancy with regard to the role attributed to him and injuries found. We are of the view that he is entitled to benefit of doubt in view of possibility of over-implication. Accordingly, his conviction and sentence are set aside and he is acquitted. He is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. 8. As regards the appeal of Bhim Singh, we find the evidence to be consistent and corroborated. We do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the High Court. Accordingly, his conviction and sentence are affirmed. He is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled and he may be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence. 9. Coming to Criminal Appeal Nos. 531-532 of 2009, we do not find any ground to interfere with the acquittal of Uday Singh S/o Suraj Bhan. Qua him the appeal is dismissed. 10. We, however, find merit in the appeal against the Mat Ram son of Kanhaiya. According to PW-10 Kamlakar Dave who was a Time Keeper with Rajasthan Roadways, Jaipur, he had seen Mat Ram working in the Department and he had checked him on 7.7.1995 at 12.00 hours. The incident in question took place on 08.07.1995 at 7.00 a.m. His evidence is thus of no relevance to support the plea of alibi. PW -11 Roop Narayan was working as Grade-II mechanic with Rajasthan Roadways and he was not the Time Keeper. Though he has stated that he found Mat Ram in the Office, his evidence cannot be accepted. Similarly, PW-12 Ram Chandra Sharma, was also another Mechanic. He had seen Mat Ram in office on 07.07.1995. The said evidence is not of any conclusive value to support the plea of alibi. 11. The trial Court rejected the said evidence and held that eye witness account against Mat Ram could not be doubted and was fully reliable. We agree with this view. The reversal of the said conclusion by the High Court is patently perverse. 12. Accordingly, we set aside the acquittal of Mat Ram and restore his conviction and sentence as awarded by the Trial Court. The appellant-Mat Ram be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.