JAGADISH SHANKAREPPA MIRJI Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for appellant and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.

(2.) The facts of the case, as claimed by the prosecution, are that on 03.07.2010 at about 8.00 p.m., P.W.8 Siddappa S/o. Bhimappa Kamadinni had received a phone call from his daughter Hema, P.W.3, to inform him that the deceased had gone to the land of accused No. 1 in the morning and he had not returned and that his cell phone appeared to be switched off.

(3.) On 04.07.2010 at about 7.00 a.m., P.W.8 is said to have gone along with C.W.6 Siddappa Chikkaraddi, C.W.8 Rangappa Dasaraddi and P.W.5 Siddappa Baluji, to the land of accused No. 1 to make enquiries as to the whereabouts of the deceased. When accused No. 1 was questioned, he had merely said that the deceased had come on the previous day on his motor cycle, but since he had immediately received a phone call he had left the place. By the demeanour of accused No. 1, P.W.8 is said to have grown suspicious, especially when he saw accused No. 1, go and whisper to his wife, who was inside the house. Therefore, when P.W.8 and others were trying to walk towards the land of accused No. 1, the wife of accused No. 1 had dissuaded them from doing so and told them that they will not find anything in the land. But however, they did go into the sugarcane field of accused No. 1 and found that the motor cycle belonging to the deceased was lying there. Thereafter P.W.8 had again questioned the accused No. 1 as to how the motor cycle of the deceased was present on his land. He had not given any satisfactory reply.