JETHU RAM YADAV Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.2.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, Distt. Durg in S.T.No.24/09 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 302 of of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default thereof to suffer additional R.I. for two months.

(2.) As per prosecution case, about 1 1/2 months prior to date of incident son of the accused/appellant died in accident from the tractor of Ramkumar (PW-2). It is alleged that after death of the appellant, deceased Alalram, who is uncle of Ramkumar, used to visit the house of the appellant to have some compromise and to ensure that no case is filed by him in relation to death of his son. It is said that on 21.4.2009 deceased Alalram again went to the house of the appellant, there was some hot talk between between the appellant, his wife Laxmibai and the deceased and during that, the appellant picked up an axe from his house and caused injuries to the deceased leading to his instantaneous death. At the instance of Ramkumar (PW-2) on 21.4.2009 itself Dehati merg (Ex.P/6) was recorded and thereafter Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/5) was registered. On 22.4.2009 numbered merg (Ex.P/16) was recorded and then FIR (Ex.P/14) was registered against the appellant and his wife Laxmibai Yadav under Sections 302, 34 of IPC. Inquest over the dead body of the deceased was prepared vide Ex.P/2. Postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted by PW-11 Dr. O.P. Mahobiya vide Ex.P/17 wherein he noticed three incised wounds over neck and face and opined that the cause of death was hemorrhage from cut of carotid artery and jugular vein. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant and his wife Laxmibai Yadav under Section 302, 34 of IPC and thereafter, charge under Section 302 in the alternative 302, 34 of IPC was framed against them.

(3.) So as to hold the accused persons guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence, the accused/appellant stated that his son Goutriha died in accident from the tractor of Ramkumar (PW-2), he wanted to filed a case for compensation, but Ramkumar and his family members pressurized him not to do so, they also forced villagers not to talk with him and even did not allow him to take his cattle for grazing, they also used to threaten him for his life.