JUDGMENT

 Special leave granted.

2. P. W. 1 Hari Babu claimed that plot No. 169 situated in Village Abdul Navipur was in his possession and he had raised crop. On March 11, 1973 around 3 P.M., P. W. 2 Babu Lal a relation of P. W. 1-Hari Babu went to the field and found about 15 persons present in the field. Some of them were cutting the crop and 5 persons including the present two appellants Purna and Guru Prasad were seen removing the crop. He returned to Hari Babu, P.W. 1 and gave him the information of what was happening in Plot No. 169, Immediately P.W. 1-Hari Babu contacted Circle Officer on telephone who directed the Flying Squad of Police to visit the scene of occurrence. P.W. 2-Babu Lal returned to the field. Some policemen came in a jeep to the field. All those who were in the field except one Baij Nath decamped. The Officer-in-charge of the Flying Squad took Baij Nath and P.W. 2-Babu Lal to P.S. Kotwali, Presumably, after questioning them no case was registered. P.W. 1-Hari Babu went on sending applications to higher officers without success. Ultimately on March 15, 1973 he filed a complaint in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Mathura against 15 persons including the present two appellants for having committed an offence under Section 395, I.P.C. It appears that the learned Magistrate committed the accused to the Court of Session.

3. The case came to be tried by First Addl. Sessions Judge, Mathura, P.W. 2 Babu Lal, P.W.3-Tikam and P.W. 4-Chitar Mal were examined as witnesses to the occurrence. The learned First Additional Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of the prosecution and convicted all the 15 accused for having committed an offence under Section 379 sentenced each of them to suffer R.I. for 3 years. All 15 convicted accused persons preferred criminal Appeal No. 1919 of 1975 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. During the pendency of the appeal accused Zorawar, Ram Singh and Raja Ram appellants died and their appeal abated. The High Court held that the remaining 12 appellants were shown to have committed an offence under S. 379 and confirmed the conviction. On the question of sentence the learned Judge held that considering the fact that the value of the crop stolen was about Rs. 500/-and the incident took place nearly eight years before the date of judgment, the sentence of 2 years R. I. awarded to each of the appellants is excessive and accordingly reduced the substantive sentence to sentence already undergone and imposed a fine of Rs. 100/- on each of the appellants.

4. Appellants Purna and Guru Prasad have filed this appeal by special leave.

5. Mr. R. K. Garg, learned advocate who appeared for the appellants urged that both the Courts are in error in rejecting the evidence of alibi led by Purna. It was urged that the relations between the appellant Guru Prasad and P.W. 1 Hari Babu were strained as they had fought election against each other and, therefore, he was falsely involved in this case. It was urged that both these aspects were not examined by the High Court.

6. Ordinarily this Court does not undertake reappreciation of evidence unless failure to do so will lead to miscarriage of justice. With this precaution, we may examine the two contentions raised by Mr. Garg in this appeal.

7. Adverting to the case of Purna, his specific and positive defence was that on the date of occurrence that is on March 11, 1973 he was assigned the duty from 8.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. in Hydel Sub-Division, at Mathura. In order to substantiate this defence, he examined D.W. 1-Mani Kant Trivedi a clerk in the office of S.D.O., Hydel, who deposed that appellant Purna was on duty from 8.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. on March 11, 1973 in Hydel Sub-Division at Mathura. In support of this statement, he produced the time keepers records made at the gate of power station at the time of enteing the power station at 8.00 A.M. He stated that the gate is locked at 8 A.M. and reopened at 5.00 P.M. and the record shows