SAJEER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1 in C.C.No.28/2016 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupet arising out of Crime No.227/2015 on the file of Respondent Police. The charge-sheet papers divulges that the accused No.1 had illicit intimacy with one Chikkathayamma, the wife of the deceased Lakshmana. The accused No.1 and deceased were close friends and often, the accused No.1 used to come to the house of the deceased Lakshmana and used to stay there. In this background, it is alleged that the accused No.1 had illicit intimacy with the wife of the deceased and the same came to the knowledge of the deceased. It is alleged that on 03.10.2015, the deceased Lakshmana saw his wife with the accused No.1 in a compromising position. Immediately, the deceased Lakshmana started abusing his wife and started assaulting her. At that time, accused No.1 caught hold of the deceased and both the accused persons strangulated his neck with a bed-sheet and committed his murder and thereafter, threw the dead body into the river Kapila, at Nanjungud. In this regard, charge-sheet has been laid.

(2.) The prosecution mainly relies upon the circumstances, last seen of the deceased with accused Nos.1 and 2 and also the voluntary statement of the accused persons. At this stage, the voluntary statement of the accused persons is of no avail to the prosecution. The material collected by the police discloses that the dead body is not yet recovered. Still the prosecution is unable to explain the cause of death of the deceased. The prosecution relied upon the statement of a witness CW-18, Bhogegowda and another witness by name Karigowda, CW-19. On perusal of these two witnesses, it creates doubts, as they have stated that on 04.10.2015 that on the next date of the incident at about 11.00 a.m. in the morning, these witnesses came to know that accused No.1 took Lakshmana along with him and also says that on the same date at about 2.00 p.m., accused No.1 came to him and enquired about Lakshmana. The statement was recorded on 12.10.2015. Though he suspected accused Nos.1 and 2 in the murder of Lakshmana but the said factum of accused Nos.1 and 2 and the deceased last seen together on 03.10.2015 has not been spoken to by these witnesses till 12.10.2015. As the case revolves around the circumstantial evidence, there must be strong circumstantial evidence to implicate the accused. At this stage, it cannot be said that the prosecution has strong unbeatable circumstances against the petitioner.

(3.) In the above said circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Hence, the following: ORDER