MADEGOWDA @ MADA S/O DESI GOWDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) The present petitioner is said to be accused No.2 along with accused Nos.1 and 3 who are accused of offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the petitioner has been taken into custody on the basis of an extra judicial confession made by accused No.1 who had claimed that he had committed murder of Dinesh, who was cited as an eye witness in a case that was filed against accused No.1 for offences punishable under Sections 478A and 304B of IPC, in view of which he had carried a grudge against Dinesh and therefore, had invited him to join accused Nos.2 and 3 for drinks and on the pretext of serving him liquor had served liquor laced with pesticide. A-3 it transpires had served liquor to the deceased, which was brought by A-1. After his death, his body was disposed of by burning it on the banks of a river. It is almost three months later that A-1 is said to have revealed this incident to one Annaiah, who in turn had informed the police and on the basis of the said information, the police had taken A-1 and A-2 into custody and the body which was buried was exhumed and identified as that of Dinesh and thereafter the present accused had been taken into custody.