Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who are the mother and brother of the deceased Yogeshgouda Goudar, a former Zilla Panchayat member, filed two writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the murder of Yogeshgouda Goudar and to take action against police officials who allegedly shielded respondent No. 10, Vinay Kulkarni, a sitting Minister. The petitioners alleged that the deceased had political enmity with Vinay Kulkarni, which culminated in a murder conspiracy. They contended that the local police investigation was flawed and biased, as critical evidence such as a suspicious car involved in the murder was not properly investigated, CCTV footage was selectively relied upon, and an alleged prior agreement of sale was fabricated to create a false motive. The petitioners further complained that after the charge sheet was filed against six accused, there were attempts to coerce the family into settling the case, including threats by a police officer, respondent No. 11 Tulajappa Sulfi, who allegedly forced the second petitioner to meet the minister and pressured him to compromise. The widow of the deceased also alleged that she was threatened and her statement was not fully recorded by the trial court. The petitioners sought a change of trial court and a fresh investigation by the CBI to ensure a fair trial. The High Court heard arguments from both sides and reserved orders on 14.02.2019, pronouncing the order on 01.03.2019. The provided text is incomplete and does not contain the final directions of the Court.
Issue of Consideration
Whether to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the murder of Yogeshgouda Goudar and directing the State respondents to initiate action against erring police officials who allegedly shielded the accused.
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (03) 88
W.P.Nos.58183-58184/2017 (GM-RES)
M.B. Naragunda (Senior Counsel), Deepak S Shetty for petitioners; A.S. Ponnanna (Additional Advocate General), Praveen K. Uppar (High Court Government Pleader) for respondents 4-6; Jagadish Patil, K.S. Patil for respondent 18; M.B. Kanavi (Senior Central Government Panel Counsel) for respondents 1-3
Smt. Tungamma and Gurunathagouda (petitioners)
Union of India and others including Central Bureau of Investigation, State of Karnataka, police officials, Vinay Kulkarni, Tulajappa Sulfi, and accused persons
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking directions for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and action against erring police officials.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (mother and brother of deceased Yogeshgouda Goudar) sought a writ of mandamus directing the CBI to investigate the murder and submit a report, and a direction to respondents 4 and 5 to initiate action against police officials who shielded respondent No. 10 Vinay Kulkarni.
Filing Reason
Allegations of flawed and biased police investigation, political interference, threats to witnesses, and a conspiracy to shield the actual conspirators in the murder of Yogeshgouda Goudar.
Issues
Whether the investigation into the murder of Yogeshgouda Goudar was conducted in a fair and impartial manner.
Whether the allegations of political interference and threats to witnesses warrant a transfer of investigation to the CBI.
Whether the actions of respondent No. 11 Tulajappa Sulfi in allegedly threatening the petitioners amount to obstruction of justice.
Whether the trial court proceedings were compromised due to the alleged failure to record the full statement of the widow and the tagging of exhibits.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners contended that the investigation was flawed: a suspicious car was not investigated, CCTV footage was selectively used, and a fabricated sale agreement was created to provide a false motive.
Petitioners argued that there was political interference as the Home Minister made a statement about the cause of murder shortly after the FIR, before the investigation established the reason.
Petitioners claimed that respondent No. 11, a police officer, threatened and coerced the second petitioner to meet the minister and settle the case, and that the widow was threatened and her statement not fully recorded.
Petitioners sought a change of trial court and CBI investigation due to lack of confidence in the local police and trial process.
Respondents' arguments are not detailed in the available text.
Judgment Excerpts
I have heard the arguments of the petitioners’ counsel and respondents’ counsel.
In the nut-shell, the case of the petitioners that Yogeshgouda Goudar is the elected member of Zilla Panchayat, Dharwad from Hebballi Constituency and respondent No.10 is the sitting Member of Karnataka Legislative Assembly from Dharwad Rural Constituency and he is the Minister of Mines and Geology, Government of Karnataka and he is the In-charge Minister of Dharwad District. There was a political enmity between them and the same is exposed in a meeting dated 23/4/2016, regarding supply of drinking water in the District which went to an extent of addressing each other in unparliamentary words.
The incident of murder of Yogeshgouda Goudar was taken place on 15/6/2016 at 7.37a.m. to 7.38a.m. that accused Nos.1 to 6 are gathered before the Uday Gym, Saptapur, Dharwad and killed him mercilessly and there was CCTV footage of next building of the place where the offence committed was recorded.
The FIR was registered in Crime No.135/2016 on 15/6/2016 at 9.30 a.m. and within a span of one hour, the Home Minister statement was published in the News channel immediately that the murder was due to the land disputes.
The petitioners in view of the said development on 3/11/2017 gave a complaint to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court seeking change of Court for trial, specifically stating in an affidavit about no-confidence about the trial judge.
Procedural History
The writ petitions were filed seeking CBI investigation. The High Court heard the arguments, reserved orders on 14.02.2019, and pronounced the order on 01.03.2019. The text cuts off before the final order is detailed.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 302, 201, 149
