A KARUNAKARA SHETTY S/O LATE A GOPAL SHETTY Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF NON-BANKING SUPERVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-state.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the deceased left the house in the month of April 2010 and he did not turn up and that on 03.09.2016 a complaint is lodged and that on 07.09.2016, these petitioners were arrested in Crime No.247/2016 on the file of Kengeri Police for the offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. At that time, the petitioners have revealed that they committed the murder of the son of the complainant in connection with the dispute with regard to the amount payable to accused No.1 for an amount of Rs.2,50,000.00 and life threat was caused and ultimately the deceased Anjini was eliminated. Based on the voluntary statement the case in Crime No.154/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 302, 201 r/w 34 of Penal Code and Sec. 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Now the police have completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet.

(3.) The main contention of the petitioners before this Court is that the deceased was missing since April- 2010 and missing complaint came to be filed on 03.09.2016 and these two petitioners were implicated based on the voluntary statement and no material is collected by the I.O. with regard to the financial capacity of the first accused to pay the huge sum of Rs.2,50,000.00 to the son of the complainant and the first accused is a lorry driver and the deceased is also a lorry driver. Unless the prosecution establish that there was a motive to commit the murder and the body is recovered, there cannot be any allegation against these petitioners that they have committed the murder and so also Sec. 3(2)(v) of SC and ST Act, 1989 are not attracted. No reasons are forthcoming why they kept quite for almost eight years and this is totally unnatural and weak piece of evidence which cannot be formed as basis for conviction and the delay has not been explained. The place wherein the dead body was buried is on the top of hillock and though these petitioners allegedly shown the place of the burial of the body and the same is not recovered and except the alleged the extra-judicial confession, there is no material to prove that these petitioners have committed the murder and hence the petitioners are entitled for bail.