MOHAMMED SULTAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the accused assailing the judgment and order of conviction dated 7.7.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions, Bidar in SC.No.67/2012, by which the accused-appellants herein are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 392 and 201 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC.

(2.) The brief factual matrix of the case as per the prosecution is that one Premsingh Anadhu Naik filed a complaint on 3.10.2011 stating that by the side of his land, under the bridge of Karaknahalli Thanda two female dead bodies were lying. On the basis of the said information, a case has been registered before Bhemalakheda Police Station. Thereafter, police visited the place of incident, prepared inquest mahazar and during the course of investigation they collected the details of the mobile phone of deceased Meenakshi, which revealed that accused No. 1 had talked with the deceased Meenakshi. It is further case of the prosecution that the deceased Meenakshi and Sridevi were of easy virtues and accused Nos. 1 and 2 fixed the price of Rs. 500.00 for enjoyment with them. In that context, on 10.2011 they brought both Meenakshi and Sridevi in an autorikshaw bearing Regn. Nos. KA.39- 1359 from their house at Markunda and took them to Vithalpur Forest Area for having sexual enjoyment with them. Thereafter they hatched a plan to rob the ornaments found on the person of Meenakshi and Sridevi. The accused proceeded to finish the deceased. Accused No. 3 caught hold of Meenakshi and pushed her on the ground. Accused No. 2 brought a rope which was being used for starting the autorickshaw and tied to the neck of Meenakshi. Thereafter, accused Nos. 2 and 3 caught hold of leg and head of Sridevi, accused No. 1 tied the rope to her neck and the accused killed both the deceased. After they came to know that the ornaments of the deceased were artificial, they tied the dead bodies with the help of their sarees and thrown them at Karakanalli under bridge with an intention to destroy the evidence. It is further case of the prosecution that during the course of investigation, recovery has been made on the basis of the voluntary statement of the accused. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused.

(3.) After following the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial Court committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court after securing the presence of the accused who were in custody and after hearing them, has framed the charge. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried and as such the trial was fixed.