Dua, J. - (1.) The appellant Ghasita alias Ghasi Ram in this appeal by special leave has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur for the offence of murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death. His appeal has been dismissed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the sentence of death confirmed on reference under Section 374, Criminal P.C.
(2.) The appellant was originally a resident of village Beera. He was married to the daughter of one Mataiyan Chamar in village Bargarh and had started living in the village of his father-in-law aboout a year prior to the murder in question. He was employed with one Mahadeo Lodhi as a plough-man. It appears that he had purchased some articles on credit from Binda, a shop-keeper of village Bargarh of the value of about Rupees 5 or 6. As the appellant had not paid the sum due from some time in spite of several demands by Binda and his father, on September 7, 1969, when the appellant was ploughing his master's field, Binda passed that way and demanded the money due to him. Ghasita, appellant, who was at that time mending Haraini of the plough on the southern end of his master's field replied that he had no money at that time and would pay the same as and when he is in a position to do so. On Binda's insistence on payment of the dues the appellant abused him. Binda in return gave a slap on the appellant's cheek. The appellant then got hold of an axe and gave a blow on Binda's neck. As a result of this blow Binda fell down on the ground. The appellant gave three or four more blows with the axe on Binda's neck, killing him instantanously. Soon thereafter the appellant ran away from the place of occurrence carrying the axe with him. This occurrence was witnessed by Chutna son of Dhani Ram, P. W. 2, Mahadeo son of Birbal, P.W. 3, with whom the appellant was employed and Rajdhar son of Ramnath P.W. 4. Mahadeo went to the village and informed Punna, father of the deceased, about his son's murder. Punna came to the place of occurrence and after entrusting the dead bodyd of his son to the witnesses, went to the Police Station Majahgaon along with the village Chowkidar to lodge the report of his son's murder.
(3.) The evidence of the eye witnesses is clear, consistent and convincing. Nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony or to throw any suspicion about the correctness of the version given by all of them consistently. In the statement made by the appellant under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code he denied every allegation except that he had started living in village Bargarh since about a year. The reason given by him for the prosecution witnesses deposing against him was that one Brijbhan who was married in the appellant's village had strained relations with him and that the said Brijbhan being the cousin brother of Rajdhar and Mahadeo they have falsely implicated him, adding that he had also refused to do begar for these persons.;