Vet claims he was at work on day of murder, HC says his isn't 24-hr job

BENGALURU: Pointing out that a veterinary inspector's job does not call for 24-hour duty, the high court has declined to accept an alibi put forth by an accused in a murder case and refused to quash proceedings against him.
Pointing out that the alleged murder took place 10km away from the workplace of veterinary inspector T Venkatesh, Justice M Nagapraanna said: "He had 5 hours to travel 10km as the alleged incident took place at 10pm."
Venkatesh, who works as a veterinary inspector at a hospital in Mandya district, has been arraigned as accused no.5 in the murder of Nagaraj at Nittor Hosadoddi village. Nagaraj was murdered by a group of people on September 18, 2017. Gowramma, wife of the deceased and another person Narayanaswamy, were injured in the attack.
Challenging the proceedings, Venkatesh claimed the attendance register indicates that he was present in his office on the date of incident. Citing the case of HK Raghu, accused no 11, he sought for quashing of the proceedings.
The government advocate argued that allegations against Raghu and the petitioner are different and added that the place of incident is 10km from Venkatesh's office and the murder took place at 10pm.
Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that though the workplace of the petitioner is 10km away from the scene of crime, the work of the petitioner is not in the nature of requiring his presence all 24 hours at the workplace. The name of the petitioner is in the murder case not at one place but at several places in the statements of the eyewitnesses, including the injured, the judge said.
The allegation is that the petitioner along with others dragged Nagaraj out and murdered him. "It indicated that one Cheluvaraju, the petitioner and another person were holding iron rods and knives while executing the act. It is stated by Gowramma that the petitioner along with others hit her husband on every part of his body with iron rods," the judge observed. The judge said the petitioner's submission drawing parallel to accused 11, in whose case there was no evidence at all, is unacceptable given the prima facie material, the complaint and the chargesheet indicating the petitioner's involvement. "The allegation in the case is not trivial. It is for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to come out clean in a trial. No ground is made out by the petitioner that warrants interference at this juncture," the judge added.