SRINIVAS @ BETHANAGERE SRINIVAS S/O HANUMANTHIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is accused No. 10 in Cr. No. 67/2009 facing charge for the offences punishable under Section 302, 120(B) r/w 149 of IPC, which after completion of investigation re -registered as CC No. 12765/2009.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that Anantharaju, Nuthan Gowda, were involved in the murder of Balekere Basavaraj and since then there was enmity between them and Lohith Gowda and his group. Anantharaju, Nuthan Gowda ranked as accused Nos. 7 and 8 respectively conspired to kill Lohith Gowda. It is alleged they knew that the petitioner herein was engaged in Real Estate business with Lohith Gowda and there was some dispute relating to that business also. It is further alleged that Nuthan Gowda was also involved in kidnapping of Arvind and was confined to judicial custody. Thus, Anantharaju, Nuthan Gowda and the petitioner herein were in judicial custody for the offences indicated above. While remaining in custody, they are alleged to have conspired with each other to kill Lohith Gowda and in this regard Anantharaju paid Rs. 20,000/ - and Nuthan Gowda arranged Car for use to commit murder of Lohith Gowda. Petitioner is alleged to have induced Lohith Gowda to go to a particular place, whereas the other accused joined together and killed him.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel would submit that prosecution case itself is that the deceased was on the way to prison carrying food for the petitioner. Therefore, there was no conflict between them. The second aspect pointed out is that the petitioner and the victim were in business, but there are no disputes. Petitioner was in custody in relation to murder of Balekere Basavaraj and in connection with another issue involving rivalry of Lohith Gowda with the other co -accused namely Anantharaju and Nuthan Gowda. It is further pointed out that when accused No. 1 to 6 were arrested, there was no material even against Anantharaju and Nuthan Gowda. Only on the basis of voluntary statement of accused Nos. 1 to 4, the other two were indicted and on their statement i.e. statement of accused No. 7 the petitioner has been indicated much later and not at the time when the FIR was registered.