GANESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.9/2008 dated 24/26.08.2010, whereby the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 307 r/w 511 of IPC and 120-B of IPC. The appellant said to be arraigned as accused No.1 is sentenced to suffer an imprisonment for a period of two years for the aforesaid offences.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case as per the charge-sheet laid by the I.O. is that on 16.08.2006, the appellant-accused No.1, along with accused No.2 Pandu Pai @ Panduranga Pai @ Praveen Pai, had agreed to take away the life of CW-2 Nagesh Devadiga @ Pitti Nagesh for a ransom of Rs.2,00,000/-, because of some previous enmity. Accused No.2 had promised to pay the said ransom to accused No.1, but during the course of trial, accused No.2 is reported dead and therefore the case against him stood abated. As on the aforesaid date at around 5 p.m., at Badagubetta Village near Kukkikatte Bus Stop, accused No.1 was present and waiting for CW-2 Nagesh Devadiga @ Pitti Nagesh as he was hatching a plan with accused No.2 to take away the life of CW-2. A photograph of CW-2 was found in the possession of accused No.1, so also a sword which was concealed by accused No.1 in his back. On suspicion and also on information given by PW-4 Anwar, police swung into operation in apprehending this accused. Subsequently, on enquiry with this accused relating to concealment of sword, which is marked as MO-1, he did not give any proper explanation. Therefore he was taken into police custody and on his personal search, they found a purse, on currency notes of Rs.100/-, photo of CW-2 Pitti Nagesh, which are marked as MO-2, MO-3 and MO-4, respectively. One paper containing printed letters 'SKKK Fruits' is marked as MO-5 and MO-6 is a photo in a cover. These are all the material objects which were found in possession of the accused which have been seized by the police in the presence of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-8 who is the PSI who filed suo moto complaint as per Ex.P6. Based on his complaint, crime came to be registered by recording an FIR as per Ex.P7. The said material objects which were seized by PW-8, the I.O. in part, during the course of investigation, have been subjected in PF No.112/06 and PF No.17/07. Subsequent to recording the FIR, the case has been handed over to another I.O, PW-12 who investigated the case and laid the charge-sheet against the accused before the Committal Court.

(3.) Subsequently, charges were framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 120- B and 307 r/w 511 of IPC, where the accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Subsequently, the prosecution in order to establish its case, examined PWs.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10, MO-1 to MO-6.