RENUKMAR AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants herein are convicted by the Fast Track Court -II, Tumkur in S.C. No. 122/2011, by the impugned judgment and order dated 19.10.2011, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased, both the accused, P.W. 1 and P.W. 9 are the sons and daughter of D.W. 1 Smt. Puttarangamma respectively; the deceased and P.W. 9 were residing at Bangalore; the deceased was running an autorickshaw whereas, P.W. 9 was working in a garment factory; P.W. 1 was the only brother who got himself divided from the joint family and got his separate property and was residing separately; whereas, both the accused, the deceased and P.W. 9 continued as joint family members; since the deceased and P.W. 9 were residing at Bangalore, both the accused were living in the village along with their mother (Puttarangamma) D.W. 1. Though P.W. 1 had taken his share from the joint family properties, he had grievance against the accused, in as much as, he was of the impression that he is not given his due share in the properties and in that regard, he was grinding an axe against the accused and his mother. It is the further case of the prosecution that the deceased had also grievance against the accused since he was not allotted his share. This part of the motive of the prosecution appears to be vague. Be that as it may. With the said motive in background, the accused committed the murder of the deceased by assaulting him and by strangulating his neck during the intervening night of 4.1.2011 and 5.1.2011 and buried the dead body in a ditch situated near Vishaka factory situated in the village, in order to hide from the crime.

(3.) SRI . A.H. Bhagawan, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants taking us through the entire material on record submits that none of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt; since none of the circumstances are proved, the chain of events was virtually not complete; the evidence of P.W. 18 - the Sub -Inspector of Police reveals that accused have not made voluntary disclosure and consequently, their statement before the police is not admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act; in view of the same, the entire circumstances of recovery of dead body as well as other material objects cannot be relied upon at by the Court. He further submits that the aspect of motive as put forth by the prosecution is vague; since P.W. 1 had grievance against the accused, he took initiative to get false case foisted against the accused. The evidence on record clearly reveals that the deceased was of an unwanted character in the society, in as much as, he was facing trial in various criminal Courts for various offences including the offence of dacoity, robbery, murder etc., It is also borne out from the records that number of enemies were created by him, who in turn were searching for him during relevant period. On these among other grounds, he prays for acquittal of the accused.