LINGANAGOUDA @ SANTOSH Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are filed by the son of the deceasedvictim and the State challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 120-B, 364, 302, 201 and 506 read with Sec. 149 of IPC and prayed the Court to set aside the judgment passed in Sessions Case No.37/2012 dtd. 30/3/2019 and convict the accused persons and sentence them for the charges levelled against them.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that one Martandagouda was missing from 11/12/2011, the same was communicated to his son, who was studying Engineering at Laxmeshwar by his mother that the deceased Martandagouda not returned to home from 11/12/2011 onwards. The son of the deceased Linganagouda came to Kurtakoti and made searches and could not trace him. Hence, he lodged the complaint in terms of Ex.P2 with the jurisdictional police on 16/12/2011 at 15.45 hours which was registered as Crime No.277/2011. While lodging the complaint, the description of clothes lost worn by him and mobile IME number of the handset of said Martandagouda was given in the complaint and he was not traced. That on 3/1/2012, the complainant gave further statement vide Ex.P1 at 19.45 hours to the police, he has stated his uncle Virupakshagouda i.e., accused No.1 was trying to sell lands for the purpose of satisfying his bad vices, his father-Martandagouda had objected for the same and had helped one Smt. Seetabai, the sister of Virupakshagouda-accused No.1 in filing a suit for partition against Virupakshagouda. Further, the paternal aunt of his father namely, Renukabai Patil was given lands bearing Sy.Nos.332 and 329, totally measuring an extent of 15 acres. The said Renukabai got married at an old age and she did not have any issues. He has further stated that after the death of Renukabi, it was agreed between her brothers that the said lands should go to the father of Virupakshagouda i.e. Melagirigowda. After the death of Renukabai, Virupakshagodaaccused No.1 was trying to get the said lands transferred to his name and was negotiating to sell the same. Hence, the said Martandagouda had also filed suit for partition in respect of land bearing Sy.Nos.332 and 329 and had obtained an order of stay on 7/12/2011. The complainant suspected the role of accused No.1 and the accused No.1 was angry with this development of assisting his sister to file a suit and obtaining an order of stay. Hence, he conspired with accused Nos.2 to 6 and earlier, the accused No.3 was tenant in the lands of the family of Martandagouda and he was having enmity against Martandagouda in removing him from the cultivation and accused No.2, friend of accused No.1, and all of them have joined their hands and within 2 to 3 days of stay obtained by Martandagouda, he went missing and stated about the ill-will. It is also an allegation that said Virupakshagouda within a short span of deceased went missing, has sold the very said land. It is also a motive for committing the murder that Neelavva i.e., accused No.4 was having illicit relationship with the complainant's father and she was also absconding from the village and heard the rumours that accused No.4 was also missing after the said Martandagouda was missing. Hence, suspected that accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and said Ningappa, in order to eliminate the Martandagouda, conspired each other and on 11/12/2011, abducted him from Kurtakoti and murdered him and disposed off the body. The said accused persons were apprehended and investigation is conducted. It is also an allegation that accused No.5 was having illicit relationship with accused No.6 and deceased also instructed accused No.4 to bring the accused No.6 for his lust and all of them were also having grudge against the deceased. Hence, it is the case of the prosecution that all the accused persons joined their hands and conspired with each other and eliminated the deceased. The police after the investigation have filed the charge-sheet and accused persons were secured and they have not pleaded guilty and claimed for trial.

(3.) The prosecution, in order to prove the case has examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 22 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P41 and M.Os. 1 to 14 was also marked. On behalf of the defence, Exs.D1 to D9 was marked. The 313 statement of the accused was also recorded and they have denied the entire incriminating evidence and not led any defence evidence.