MAHENDRA NETAM Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant would call in question the legality and validity of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.07.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, in Sessions Trial No.40/2013, whereby he has been convicted by the trial Court for committing offence under Section 302 IPC and held him guilty for causing murder of his father Uday Ram Netam at about 7:30 PM of 29.07.2013.

(2.) According to the prosecution case, deceased Uday Ram had three sons namely Mahesh Kumar Netam, Mahendra Netam and informant Umendra Kumar Netam. There was subsisting land dispute between the accused and his father Uday Ram Netam, the deceased, in respect of half acre land which is adjoining to the share of land fallen in the share of accused. On the date and time of incident, appellant had reached to the house of informant Umendra Kumar with whom the deceased was residing. The appellant started raising quarrel with his father in respect of the land in dispute. At this point of time, informant Umendra Kumar reached the place of occurrence and tried to persuade and separate the appellant and their father. But the appellant picked up the burning wooden log and gave one blow over the head of the deceased causing lacerated wound and serious bleeding. The deceased fell down on the ground and died after some time.

(3.) The FIR (Ex. P-3) was lodged by Umendra Kumar Netam (PW-2). This witness has been examined before the trial Court and has fully supported the case of prosecution. At para 5 of the deposition, he has stated that he had not seen the occurrence but in the same breath he rectified his earlier statement saying that he has seen the occurrence. His presence over the place of occurrence is otherwise corroborated by the MLC report (Ex. P-16/A) proved by Dr. Suneel Bharti (PW-13). The fact of the informant having sustained injuries during scuffle is also mentioned in the FIR. Thus, the statement of this witness that he has seen the occurrence is duly corroborated from his own medical evidence and the contents of FIR, therefore, only for the reason that at one stray place in his deposition he has stated that he has not seen the occurrence, would not be fatal for the prosecution.