The Karnataka High Court.
Credit: DH File Photo
Bengaluru: The high court has upheld the order of the trial court for retrial in the Dharwad ZP member Yogeshgoudar murder case.
The special court had directed retrial in terms of CrPC section 216 (4) and the procedure prescribed under sections 230 and 231 (summoning and examining of witnesses) based on the charge sheet filed by the police as well as the supplementary charge sheets filed by the CBI.
Yogeshgoudar was murdered on June 15, 2016, at Dharwad. On September 9, 2016, the sub-urban police, Dharwad, had filed a charge sheet against six accused persons. The probe was handed over to CBI on Sept 6, 2019. Subsequently, the CBI filed three supplemental charge sheets, against 21 accused, including former minister and Congress MLA Vinay R Kulkarni. The special court allowed the application filed by CBI seeking permission for alteration of the charges as well as summoning/examination of witnesses.
This order of the special court dated June 28, 2024, was challenged by accused Basavaraj Shivappa Muttagi and five others. It was argued that the conduct of trial under CrPC section 216(4) would amount to a de-novo trial; new trial or a retrial, which would erase the entire evidence on record, as on the date of passing of the order.
On the other hand, P Prasanna Kumar, special public prosecutor for CBI, said retrial is imperative. The SPP produced a comparative chart between the probe, charge sheets filed by the state and CBI to demonstrate that they are at complete variance. He said if retrial is not conducted, the three supplemental charge sheets would vanish in thin air and the guilty would get away scot free.
The court perused the judgements of the apex court, interpreting CrPC section 216, and said a trial court is empowered to alter or add to any charge even after reserving the matter for judgment.
“If the impugned order is considered on the touchstone of statutory provisions supra and interpretation on those provisions placed by the Supreme Court in various judgments, the unmistakable inference would be, no fault being found by the order so passed by the concerned court. The order is based upon sound reasons and procedure necessarily to be followed is what is ordered by the concerned court. On the entire analysis of the reasons rendered by the court, there is no warrant to interfere with the order impugned,” Justice M Nagaprasanna said, while dismissing the petitions.