JUDGMENT

NAVIN SINHA, J.

The appellant is aggrieved by his conviction under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) affirmed Narsingh Pal v. State of U.P. by the High Court.

2. The appellant is stated to have come to the house of the deceased accompanied by two unknown persons. The deceased sustained three firearm injuries consequent to the firing made upon him. PW 1, son of the deceased, is an eyewitness and also the informant. PW 2 is an independent eyewitness supporting the case of the prosecution in his examination-in-chief but retracted in cross-examination. He was never declared hostile.

3. The plea on behalf of the appellant is of false implication, alibi and disputing that PW 1 was an eyewitness. Reliance was also placed on the cross-examination of PW 2 to submit that he was not an eyewitness. Delay in lodging of the FIR was also contended urging that it was lodged after consultation. There are no independent witnesses from the village. The allegation of village political rivalry was false. The appellant had attended the cremation of the deceased which was an unnatural conduct, if he was actually the assailant. PW 1 vacillated between stating that he saw the appell