Gun owner gets bail in ‘uncle’s murder’ case
He had lent weapon thinking it would be used to shoot birds
A person who had lent his gun to a friend’s friend, in the belief that it will be used for shooting birds, has become an accused in a murder case. After spending two months in jail, he has been granted bail after he submitted to the court, his side of the story.
Nithyanandan is the gun owner and Hanumantharayappa, a retired school teacher, his friend, who borrowed it from him and gave it to one Ravi Kumar Gowda. Nithyanandan was allegedly under the impression that Gowda wanted to shoot some birds in the village with the gun.
The police case is that 41-year-old Muddu Krishnappa, a financier, was shot dead on October 13 this year, while travelling on a bike in Doddaballapur. His nephew, Ravi Kumar Gowda, is the main accused, who allegedly shot his uncle dead as the latter refused to partition the family’s ancestral property. There are eight other accused in the case and police have seized two guns; one a single barrel muzzle loading gun and the second, a smooth-bore breech loading gun.
Apart from Nithyanandan BH, and Hanumantharayappa aka Kurudu Meshtru, the other accused are Ramanjinappa, MS Jagadish, Varadaraju, N Outtachaar, L Srinivas, GR Krishnappa and G Bommasandra.
Nithyananda and Bommasandra are the owners of the two guns. Hanumantharayappa allegedly helped Gowda get the second gun from Nithyanandan. After the shootout, Gowda himself shifted his uncle to hospital, where he died.
Nithyanandan is now accused number five and Hanumantharayappa accused number four in the case where the crimes alleged include murder and under the Arms Act. Nithyanandan’s advocate argued before the HC that he had a licence for the gun and he had given it without live cartridges thinking it would be used to scare birds.
The HC noted that there is no material against Nithyananda about his participation in the firing at the deceased and committing his murder.
The same went forConsidering that both these accused promised to abide by any conditions imposed on them for bail, the HC granted them bail last week.
Amar Alva’s murder accused walks free
Ashok Shetty was booked under TADA for the sensational 1992 murder; HC has quashed the case against him
The sensational murder of Amar Alva (in pic), a Mangaluru strongman, in 1992 changed the course of the underworld in Karnataka. However, there is nothing the police and prosecution can be proud of as the case against the last of the seven accused, Ashok Shetty, has been quashed by the High Court. This comes four months after the case against another accused, Udaya Shetty, was quashed. All seven accused are now free.
Ashok Shetty is the fifth of the seven accused in the murder of Amar Alva. Shetty was booked under various sections of the IPC Arms Act and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, better known as TADA. Ashok Shetty along with the other accused Udaya Shetty were absconding and the case against them was split up.
The other five accused in the case were acquitted by the trial court in 1996. The case against Udaya Shetty was also quashed earlier this year. The case against the accused was that they were hiding in Goa after looting Rs 6 lakh in Udupi in 1991. Amar Alva was shadowing them and fearing him they decided to eliminate him. Ashok Shetty who was in Dubai was contacted by the other accused to help them kill Alva.
Alva was shot dead on July 14, 1992, in front of Super Bazar near Milagres Church, Mangaluru. Manjunath Shetty, Vijaya Nayak, Kedarnath Shetty, Ramesh Bhat, Sachith Kumar, Sudarshan, Jagannath Shetty and Balakrishna Rai, who were with Alva at that time were injured in the shootout.
The High Court in its recent judgment quashing the case against Ashok Shetty said, “The main accused are accused Nos. 1 to 3 and they are already acquitted by the Court. Therefore, in my opinion when there is no separate and distinct allegations and the prosecution already put in evidence against accused Nos. 1 to 3 and others, perhaps the prosecution may not have separate evidence against this petitioner also.”
The HC cited earlier judgments where cases against coaccused were quashed after the main accused were acquitted, saying “In such circumstances it will be an exercise in futility to make the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of crime, and then to be acquitted. Holding that the proceeding against the accused person who was absconding and subsequently against whom a split up charge sheet was filed was quashed.”
Quashing the case against Ashok Shetty, the HC said, “In view of the above said facts and circumstances and the law laid down for above said case, it is just and necessary to quash the entire proceedings against this petitioner as the petitioner also stand on the same footing as that of accused No. 6 (Udaya Shetty)”.