SUKUL KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 03.06.2014 passed in S.T. No.57/2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, District: Bilaspur (C.G.) wherein, the Appellant has been convicted under Section 304 Part-I of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.100/- with default stipulations.

(2.) In this case, the name of the deceased is Ramkunwar Yadav who was the mother of the present Appellant. According to the case of prosecution, on 25.08.2013 at about 03:00 P.M. deceased Ramkunwar Yadav called one Baiga namely Tiharu (PW-03) for some treatment. At that time, the Appellant came there and assaulted her mother with the help of an Axe due to which, Ramkunwar Yadav sustained severe injuries on her head and other parts of her body. Due to that, later on she died. The incident was witnessed by Ramkali (PW-02) and Tiharu (PW-03). The matter was reported by complainant Sukhnandan Singh who is the brother of the present Appellant. On the basis of said report, offence was registered. Post Mortem of body of deceased was conducted by Dr. Hemant Tanwar. His report is Exhibit P-16. During investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed, the Trial Court framed the charges under Section 302 of IPC against the Appellant. To robe the Appellant, prosecution examined as many as total 07 witnesses. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, Appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. After completion of trial, the Trial Court acquitted the Appellant from the charges framed under Section 302 of IPC instead of that the Trial Court convicted the Appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in Para 01 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that without there being sufficient and clinching evidence available on record, the Trial Court has wrongly convicted the Appellant. He further submits that though, Ramkali (PW-02) and Tiharu (PW-03) have supported the case of prosecution but there are material contradictions and omissions occurred in their statements. Both, the above witnesses have also admitted that fact that at the time of incident, the mental condition of the Appellant was not stable. Ignoring this fact, Trial Court has wrongly convicted the Appellant. Alternatively, it is argued by the counsel that, out of 10 years of jail sentence imposed upon the Appellant, he has undergone 7 years in jail therefore, it is prayed by counsel that jail sentence awarded to the Appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.