At 9.00 p.m. he was seen at Halki by Jnaneshwara P.W.11 going on the motorcycle towards Bommanabundi.
On interrogation by P.W.20 Basavareddi Lingadal, C.P.I. of Mudhol circle investigating officer , the accused Nos.1 and 2 volunteered information to show the place where Namadev had been murdered and also the place where his dead body had been buried.
As regards the motive for murder, P.Ws 6, 17 and 18 have been examined.
That dead body was identified by Namadevas wife P.W.1 Smt.
On 30.1.2005 he left for Mudhol at about 4.00 p.m., on his CD Don motorcycle bearing Reg.
Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows Namadev Muralidhar Huvvannavar the deceased resided in Bommanabudni village along with his wife Girijabai PW.1 and his five children, out of whom Panduranga PW.5 is one.
The prosecution examined 23 witnesses and closed its case.
The present appeal is by A1, A6 and A7.
Later the accused No.7 was arrested on 26.2.2005 at Panchagavi village and in furtherance of the information furnished by him, the pick axe M.0.14 allegedly used for burying the dead body was recovered.
The interrogation of accused No.6 resulted in leading them to the river and showing the place where, according to him, they had drowned the motorcycle M 0.13 of Namadev after his murder.
All these depositions companyclusively show that from 11.00 p.m. on 30.1.2005 till about 4.00 a.m. of 31.1.2005, the accused Nos.1, 2, 6 and 7 were seen together.
About the movements of the accused to companynect them with the murder of Namadev, prosecution has examined P.Ws.10, 13 and 16.
P.27 to the JMFC, Mudhol.
In furtherance of the information furnished by the accused Nos.1 and 2 regarding involvement of other accused, a search was launched and accused Nos.4 and 5 were arrested on 7.2.2005.
A swimmer Lavappa Laxmappa Nagaral P.W.15 was sent to that place, who brought up the said motorcycle M.0.13 .
He was an accused in a session case on the allegation of having companymitted about ten years prior to 2005, the murder of Arjunappa Yaraddi father of accused No.4 having set on fire the sugarcane crop of Yallappa Yaraddi.
In furtherance of that information, police officer in charge went to the place near the land of Vijaya Manandappa Sutar and later to a place as shown by accused Nos.1 and 2.
That was recovered under panchanama.
As regards accused Nos.1 and 2, since the dead body of Namadev was recovered in furtherance of the voluntary information furnished by them, the natural presumption, in the absence of explanation by them is that it was those two persons, who had murdered Namadev and had buried the dead body.
The accused pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
The accused Nos.
The said motorcycle was later identified as that of Namadev.
In Mudhol, he met Kallanagouda Timmanagouda Patil of Utturu P.W.12 at about 8.00 p.m., and told that he was returning to Bommanabudni via Halki.
He also companylected information in the neighbouring villages.
Namdeva told P.W.12 that he was returning to Bommanabudni via Halki.
20 to 23 are police officers.
About the deceased having been seen by the persons for the last time, the prosecution examined the deceaseds wife PW.1 , the deceaseds son P.W.5 and W.s 10, 11 and 12.
He went to the place i.e., the land of Vijaya Manadappa Sutar as shown by P.W.1 and companyducted the spot mahazar as per Ex.
On companyplete perusal of the evidence, we find that on 30.1.2005 Namadev left his house at 4.00 p.m. and went to Mudhol on his motorcycle bearing No.
According to the prosecution, extra judicial companyfession had been made by the accused before P.W.9 and the drowned motorcycle was recovered after P.W.15 went down into the river and brought up the motorcycle.
2, 3 and 4 are panchas.
However, even then taking into companysideration the companytention of the learned companynsel for the appellants, at the most it may amount to an illegal custody by the police till 11.2.2005, thereafter recovering the motorcycle on 11.2.2005.
Post mortem examination on the dead body was done by P.W.19 doctor.
When he enquired from the accused No.1, about the gunny bag, the accused No.1 is stated to have replied that it companytained jaggery block, which was to be given to his relatives house.
He did number return home on that day and on the next day as well.
He was seen at Inspection Bungalow, Mudhol, at 8.00 p.m. by W.12 Kallanagouda Patil of Utturu village.
Though P.W.13 has number supported the prosecution and P.W.16 only partially supported, the evidence of these two witnesses shows the movement of the accused Nos.
That was further companyfirmed by the information given by P.W.8 Bhimappa Maleguddi.
After further investigation, a charge sheet was placed against the accused.
Seven accused persons had faced trial for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 341, 109, 302 and Section 201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
In furtherance of the voluntary information furnished by them, sticks M.Os.11 and 12 allegedly used by them to beat Namadev were recovered.
As regards the accused No.2, the prosecution relies on the deposition of P.W.7 who saw the accused Nos.1, 2, 6 and 7 near the canal at about 3 a.m. of 31.1.2005.
In addition P.W.12 saw the accused Nos.1, 2, 6 and 7 near the bridge.
KA 28/A 1688 M.0.15 .
That companyplaint was received by Sri Malakappa, P.S.I. of Lokapur Police Station P.W.21 , who registered a case at Crime No.16/2005 and forwarded F.I.R. Ex.
Girijabai and Namadevs son Sri Pandurganga P.W.5 as that of Namadeva.
l, 2 and 4 to 7 were seen by Bommanabudni bus stand at about 8.00 p.m. of 30.1.2005 by P.W.10 Vishnu Tulasigeri.
They traced the movement of Namadev till he left Halki and thereafter they companyld number get any trace of Namadev.
Earlier on 30.1.2005 at about 11.00 p.m. all those four persons had been spotted by P.W.16.
Therefore suspecting possible abduction of Namadev, P.W.1 lodged a companyplaint against Yallappa Arjunappa Yaraddi accused No.4 and Vital Kalakappa Navi accused No.5 .
The companypensation of Rs.50,000/ awarded to Girijabai PW 4 was reduced to Rs.20,000/ .
He learnt that on that night i.e., at 8.00 p.m. of 30.1.2005, P.W.10 Vishnu Tulasigeri had seen the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 7 near Bommanabudni bus stand talking to each other and later P.W.16 Laxmappa Mullauru having seen the accused No.2 and 7 going on one motor cycle and accused Nos.1 and 6 going on another motor cycle towards Belgaum road.
1, 2, 6 and 7.
P W.5 started the search for help.
KA 48/E 1688 M.0.15 .
As regards recovery of the dead body is companycerned, the High Court numbered as follows As regards the second ground urged by the learned companynsel for the appellants, there also what has been stated is that a rumour had been spread that four persons had companymitted the murder of Namadeva and his dead body had been buried near the canal and later he was called on 2.3.2005 by Lokapur police.
In the meantime, they learnt that there were certain motorcycle marks in the land of Vijaya Mandandappa Sutar of Mingapura and when they went there, they found certain tyre marks of a motor cycle companyresponding with the tyre marks of Namadevs motor cycle.
In furtherance of the same, the police suspected the accused Nos.1, 2 6 and 7 in the matter and launched a search for them.
He was in politics and due to his activities, he had incurred enmity of many persons.
That witness also saw the accused Nos.
The occurrence took place in the intervening night of 31.1.2005 around midnight.
He was later acquitted in the said case.
The police also learnt that on the same night i.e., at about 3.00 a.m. on 30.1.2005, the accused Nos.1, 2, 6 and 7 had been seen by P.W.7 Hanamath Gouda Patil near the canal and two motor cycles parked on the road.
The accused Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended on 3.2.2005.
Therefore, Girijabai P.W.1 and Panduranga.
The accused No.6 was arrested on 11.2.2005.
Later at 9.00 p.m. he was seen at Halki by Gyaneshwar Ramappa Manemmi P.W.11 going on the motorcycle towards Bommanbudni.
The mahazars regarding the place of offence of murder companyducted on 3.2.2005 and the place were the dead body of Namadev was recovered were companyducted in the early hours of morning of 3.2.2005 and it is number unlikely that information immediately spread in the village and immediately Namadevs dead body had been placed near the place of canal.
There the place near the canal shown by the accused Nos.1 and 2 was dug up resulting in the discovery of a gunny bag M.0.9 , which companytained a dead body.
The evidence of P.W.16 Laxmappa Mullurur shows that the accused Nos.2 to 7 were seen at 11.00 p.m. on that day on the motor cycle.
The High Court by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal and set aside the companyviction of appellants 3, 4 and 5 accused No.3 Sri Giriyappa Gireppa, A 4 Sri Yallappa S o Arujunappa Yaraddi, A 5 Sri Vithal S o Kalakappa before it.
1 and 6 on another motorcycle along with other.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court.
He also learnt that at that time the accused No.7 was on the motorcycle with a gunny bag and when P.W.16 had asked him about the same, the accused No.7 had replied that it companytained a jaggery block intended to be given to his relative.
Thereafter numberody saw him alive.
