JAYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Nagaraj, husband of the petitioner and his son dhananjaya, aged about 11 years went to tirupati along with R-3 to R-5 on 12-5-2007. The petitioner states that on 13-5-2007, R-3 informed the petitioner over telephone that her husband Nagaraj is missing. The petitioner requested him to trace her husband and also to give complaint if necessary. R-3 to R-5 returned to village from Tirupati on 13-5-2007 instead of the Scheduled date 14-5-2007. R-3 returned Rs. 2,000/- cash to the petitioner which he had taken from Nagaraj. On enquiry made by the petitioner, the respondents were unable to give satisfactory answers.

(2.) IT is stated that on 12-5-2007 R-3 to R-5, nagaraj and his son Dhananjaya first went to a hotel in Majestic to have tiffin. Nagaraj while climbing the steps fell down and R-3 to r-5 with great difficulty lifted him and put him in the bus to Tirupati. The petitioner gave a complaint to R-2 on 28-5-2007 reporting the missing of her husband. The police did not take action. Hence she gave complaint on 31-7-2007 by registered post. According to the petitioner, the police have not made any sin cere efforts to trace Nagaraj. She further states that she has reason to suspect that R-3 to R-5 are responsible for the mysterious missing of her husband. 2-A. The State has filed objections stating that the enquiries reveal two versions regarding the circumstance under which Nagaraj went missing. One version according to dhananjaya. (son of the petitioner) is that r-2 to R-5 and Dhanajaya were travelling in the bus to Tirupati. In the morning when the bus reached Tirupati, R-3 to R-5 told him that nagaraj is missing from the bus. However. himself and R-2 to R-5 went to the Hill top. had Dharshan and came back to the village.

(3.) THE other version according to R-3 to 5 and one Anil Kumar, who had accompanied them to the pilgrimage shows that the missing person travelled with them and all of them went to the hill top. Nagaraj was reluctant to come for Dharshan and hence leaving him outside the temple, they went for Dharshan. When they returned they found that Nagaraj is not available. They searched for him in vain and came back to the village.