Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Petitioner has been arraigned as Accused No.9 in S.C.No.640/2012 and being tried for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 324, 201, 120B, 118 and 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC. Application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge of petitioner which came to be dismissed by trial court by order dated 05.06.2017 is called in question.

2. Heard Sri.Lakshmikanth, learned counsel appearing for petitioner/accused No.9 and learned HCGP appearing for the State. Perused the records.

5. Said application came to be resisted by the prosecution, which received the attention of the jurisdictional Sessions Court and after hearing the rival contentions and on examination of records, it has been noticed by trial court that case of the prosecution has been that accused No.5 to 7 had initially approached the present petitioner/accused No.9 for eliminating deceased Nataraj, since he was known to be a supari killer. It is also urged that a part of the amount was given to Accused No.9 prior to the death of Nataraj and accused No.9 inspite of having the knowledge of criminal conspiracy with Accused No.5 to 7 has concealed said fact and thereby he has committed an offence punishable under Section 118 of IPC.

6. Prosecution relied upon the statements of CW96- Anand and CW-97-Manjunath, who in their statements recorded on 20.1.2012 under Section 161 Cr.P.C., have stated that present accused No.9 i.e, the petitioner and his friends were involved in the murder case of Kulla Natarj and they were acquitted in the case. They have also stated that accused No.9 was not having any occupation and own source of income and therefore, he was involved in criminal activities. They have also stated that Accused No.9 had taken CW-96 to Gandhinagar in August 2009 and at that time CW.96-Anand had also seen Accused No.5 to 7 were thanking to Accused No.9 and on that day Accused No.9 is said to have carried cash of Rs.1,00,000/- which was said to have been received by him from Accused No.5 to 7. Said witness has also stated that accused No.9 disclosed to him that he had taken supari for Rs.25,00,000/- to kill Nataraj and had received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance. This fact has also been spoken to by CW-97 Manjunath. In this back ground, Sessions Court has rightly recorded that material on record would indicate that earlier accused No.5 to 7 had approached Accused No.9 for the purpose of giving supari to kill Nataraj and thereby accused No.9 had received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance from Accused No.5 to 7 to kill Nataraj and thereafter, on account of certain difference of opinion having arisen between them A-9 (petitioner) had not executed the work entrusted to him, namely to kill Nataraj. This material on record shows that accused No.9 had knowledge of criminal conspiracy and yet had concealed the said conspiracy till Nataraj was eliminated or killed. In that view of the matter, Sessions Judge has rightly arrived at a conclusion that sufficient materials are there against the petitioner/ accused No.9 to attract Section 118 of IPC and as such, charge leveled against accused No.9 cannot be held as without any basis.