RAMESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed seeking for the quashing of the proceedings in J.C. No.33/2011 pending on the file of Principal C.J.M. and Member, Juvenile Court, Belgaum, wherein the petitioner is arrayed as accused.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that State through Malamaruthi Police laid a charge sheet against this petitioner and as well as against three other persons by name Rambhaddur, Manoj Ramesh Gurkha and Prathavi Mohan Gurkha. As this petitioner was a juvenile as on the date of the offence he was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board for trial, wherein the other three accused persons were put on trial before the Fast Track Court -II and Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum. It is the case of the prosecution that a person by name Jayabahadursingh Gorkha, who was the husband of Smt. Meena @ Meenakshi was doing night gust duty in Auto Nagar area in Belgaum. The accused No.1 Rambhaddur was also doing the night gust duty in the same area, it is alleged that there was some differences between the said Rambhaddur and the deceased with regard to the collection of money from the occupiers of the houses, for having done night gust duty in the said area. It is also alleged that two or three times both of them quarrelled each other. In this background, it was alleged that on 19.04.2000 at about 11.00 p.m. the deceased Jaybahadursingh Gorkha left his house for night gust duty. The other accused Ramesh Gorkha and this petitioner went near the house of the deceased at about 11.30 p.m. and enquired about the deceased with his wife Smt. Meena. It is alleged when the deceased was on night gust duty in Auto Nagar near Champabai Bogale Road the accused persons and as well as the petitioner came there and in fact caught hold the deceased and assaulted him with their hands, due to which the deceased fell down and with the help of green colour Nylon rope the accused persons have strangulated the deceased and caused his death and thereafter, threw his dead body into the road side gutter.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge so far it relates to the other accused are concerned, framed charges and conducted the trial. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined PW -1 to PW -20 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P23 and material objects MO -1 to MO -11. After detailed analysis of the materials on record, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused Nos.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt. In fact, on careful and meticulous perusal of the Judgment of the Sessions Court it disclose, the Trial Court not only considered the case of the other accused persons but also conjointly considered the overt act of the juvenile offender, because the juvenile offender was not before the Sessions Court he could not acquit the juvenile offender. Therefore, the accused were acquitted by the Sessions Judge.