Karnataka High Court upholds framing of charge against Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni in BJP worker's murder

The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition moved by Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni challenging the order framing charges against him in the murder case of former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) worker Yogesh Goudar..Justice Krishna S Dixit said that Kulkarni, who was then a Minister, had conspired with his close associates and other accused for Goudar’s murder following an altercation in a Panchayat meeting held in April 2016.The Court also commented on the protracted trial in the case and took note of the fact that the accused including Kulkarni have moved the courts several times since the incident happened in 2016. “Since then, years have rolled, not even a leaf being turned. A long drawn criminal case would dis-serve the interest of administration of criminal justice. Every case, more particularly, a case of this kind should be tried & disposed off ‘Before the Memory Fades’, at least as a concession to the shortness of human life. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the trial of this case should be conducted on a war footing,“ the Court said. .Goudar, an elected member of Dharwad Zilla Panchayat, was killed at his gym in June 2016. The case was initially probed by the Karnataka Police and six persons were arrested. While the trial was on, the BJP government transferred the case to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2019.Kulkarni was arrested by the CBI in 2020. He was chargesheeted later and the trial court framed charges against him in December 2023..Challenging the order framing charges, Kulkarni’s counsel told the High Court that there was absolutely no material on record to connect him to the murder and therefore, no charge could have been framed against him.However, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who appeared for the CBI, argued that the case against Kulkarni was based on circumstantial evidence and statements made by several witnesses and the documents filed before the trial court lend enough credence to the prosecution case..The Court discussed the evidence in detail and agreed with the argument made by prosecution that involvement of the accused can be ascertained from his conduct before and after the commission of the crime.Besides the alleged altercation between the accused and victim, the Court also noted that some of the accused had stayed at a place arranged by Kulkarni days before Goudar’s murder.The Court also took note of the phone calls between other accused and Kulkarni before the murder. “Significantly, 54 calls were made during a short period of 16.4.2016 and 31.5.2016. Thus, in all, there were 94 phone calls, which raise a thick presumption as to the complicity of the petitioner and other accused in the commission of subject offences,” it said..The Court discussed the evidence allegedly showing attempts to influence, intimidate and tutor the prosecution witnesses.It further observed that Kulkarni before and around the date of murder had been shuttling between Bangalore and Delhi “with intent to generate material in support of the clandestine plea of alibi“. .The Court rejected the argument that there was no material to link Kulkarni with any offence punishable under Arms Act. With regard to the submission that Kulkarni had not been supplied certain documents that are part of the chargesheet, the Court referred to the order sheet of trial court which recorded that a chargesheet copy was received by his counsel.“If the material on record which has been produced before this court by both the sides in abundance, is examined, it cannot be argued that the charges as framed against the petitioner herein are unfounded,” the Court said as it dismissed the petition..Though the Court denied relief to Kulkarni, it also recorded that it was not impressed with ASG Raju’s argument that the accused had abused the process of court by instituting case after case. “A citizen is entitled to have recourse to judicial process any number of times if grounds do exist therefor. Merely because no substantial relief has been granted to him in his repeated recourse, one cannot hastily jump to the conclusion that he has committed an act of abuse of the process of the court or of the law, subject to all just exceptions into which argued case of the respondent does not fit,” the Court said..Senior Counsel CV Nagesh and Advocate K Raghavendra represented the petitioner. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju and advocates P Prasanna Kumar and Advocate Rahul Reddy represented the CBI..[Read Judgment]