STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. GOVINDANAIKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and order of acquittal dated 03.08.2011 passed by Prl. District & Sessions Court, Mysore in S.C. No. 66/2010 is called in question in this appeal by the State.

(2.) Case of the prosecution in brief is that deceased Mallesha is the first son of P.Ws. 2 and 13; he was aged about 17 years during the relevant point of time; at about 6.00 p.m. on 24.10.2009 accused No. 1 came to the house of deceased and took the deceased along with him; accused No. 1 along with other accused forced the deceased to consume alcohol; thereafter made galata with the deceased; all the accused including the juvenile accused (who is facing trial before the juvenile justice Court) and the deceased stayed in the house of one Devanaika wherein accused No. 3 was selling gobi -manchuri. Since the deceased did not return to the house, P.W. 2 (father of the deceased) started enquiring about his son, at about 7.00 a.m. on 25.10.2009 juvenile offender (accused No. 2 namely Suresh) informed P.W. 2 that the deceased had come on the previous day night and had stayed along with accused in the house of Devanaika; before the accused could get up from bed on 25.10.2009, the deceased had left the house of Devanaika and has gone elsewhere; thereafter, P.W. 2 enquired with other accused also, but the reply was same. P.W. 2 and his relatives searched for the deceased, but they did not find the deceased. At about 6.00 a.m. on 26.10.2009, Somanaika (P.W. 11) and Lakshmananayaka came to the house of deceased and told P.W. 2 that T -shirt and chappals belonging to the deceased were found on the tank bund; after hearing them, P.W. 2 and the villagers went near the tank bund and they searched for the dead body, ultimately, they could able to trace the dead body within the lake; legs of the dead body were tied with the waist thread; there were injuries on the cheek and head of the deceased; the blood was oozing from the ears and nose of the deceased.

(3.) In order to prove its case the prosecution in all, has examined 26 witnesses and got marked 25 documents and 6 material objects. On behalf of the defence, no witness has been examined. As aforementioned, the Trial Court on evaluation of the materials on record, acquitted all the accused, who faced the trial in S.C. No. 66/2010.