'No Finding I Was Part Of Conspiracy, Yet I Was Convicted': Vinay Kulkarni's Uncle Tells Karnataka High Court In Yogesh Goudar Murder Case

Chandrasekhar Indi (Accused No. 16), the uncle of former Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni, on Wednesday (July 1) told the Karnataka High Court that the trial court's judgment contains no finding that he was a member of the criminal conspiracy to murder BJP leader Yogesh Goudar, yet he has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 120B read with Section 302 of the IPC.

Indi made the submissions before the Division Bench of Justices Mohammad Nawaz and G. Basavaraja while challenging the judgment of the Special Court for MP/MLA cases. He argued that Chapter 9 of the trial court's judgment, which deals exclusively with the alleged conspiracy to murder Yogesh Goudar, contains no finding regarding his role in the conspiracy.

Indi was convicted under Sections 302 read with 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy to commit murder) and 201 read with 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy to cause disappearance of evidence). He has appealed against his conviction and sentence along with former MLA Vinay Kulkarni.

Referring to Chapter 9 of the judgment, which analyses the evidence relating to the alleged conspiracy and the evidentiary value of approver Basavaraja Muttagi (PW-10), Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu, assisted by Advocate Vandana P.L., argued that Indi's conviction for conspiracy to commit murder and the consequent sentence of life imprisonment are "patently illegal" as there is no evidence linking him to the conspiracy before the commission of the offence.

Counsel submitted that after analysing the evidence of the approver and other witnesses, the Special Court concluded that the prosecution had established the conspiracy only against Accused Nos. 1 to 15 and 18, but not against Accused No. 16 (Indi).

Reading from the judgment, counsel submitted:

"...for the sake of convenience, the entire material which is placed before the Court is once again appreciated. By looking into the aforesaid aspects, it is clear that the prosecution has established the entering of criminal conspiracy by Accused No.1 to 15 and 18 to cause the murder of Yogesh Gouder."

At this juncture, the court enquired: “A16 is missing in para 81, is it by oversight? Nothing is there in the body of judgment otherwise?”

Senior Counsel, responding the question posed by the court, said: “Chapter 9 is the only chapter devoted to conspiracy and the role of Accused 16 is not discussed but I am convicted for conspiracy to murder, milord”.

He argued that in the absence of any finding that Indi was a member of the conspiracy, his conviction under Section 120B read with Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained.

Counsel further submitted that although a charge under Section 302 IPC had been framed against Indi, the evidence on record does not establish his participation in the offence.

Indi also challenged his conviction under Section 201 read with Section 120B IPC, contending that there is no evidence to show that he attempted to screen the offenders.

Counsel further pointed out that while the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 201 IPC is seven years' imprisonment, Indi has been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 120B read with Section 302 IPC in addition to the sentence imposed under Section 201 read with Section 120B IPC.

Seeking suspension of sentence, counsel relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary & Anr. [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 389], wherein it was held that while considering suspension of sentence, the appellate court need only examine whether the convict has a fair chance of acquittal and is not required to undertake a detailed reappreciation of the evidence.

Reading from the judgment, counsel submitted: "...If the answer to the above said question [fair chance of acquittal] is in the affirmative... if ultimately the convict appears entitled to an acquittal, he should not be kept behind bars for a long time till the appeal, which usually takes considerable time for disposal."

He argued that only a cursory examination of the evidence is required at the stage of suspension of sentence.

“…. My humble submission is there must be a cursory scanning of the evidence by the court at this stage since there is something palpably wrong in the conviction…I have brought to the court's notice the conviction on murder for A16. So far as A16 is concerned no finding is there that he was involved in conspiracy to murder. in its absence there can't be conviction. Therefore, A16's case is simple for the suspension of sentence”, the counsel submitted.

When the Bench asked about the allegations against Indi, counsel submitted that the only material against him is the testimony of PW-10 (the approver), who stated that after the murder he went to Bengaluru, where he allegedly saw a car parked near Sankey Tank with a person standing beside it, who has been identified as Accused No. 16.

"That was (allegedly) after the commission of the offence, not prior to it," the counsel added.

The Court had earlier heard arguments from the CBI and Ex-MLA Vinay Kulkarni.

Context

Yogesh Goudar, a zilla panchayat member of the BJP from Hebballi constituency, was murdered by an armed gang at his gym in Saptapur in Dharwad in 2016. An FIR was registered with the Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station at the instance of the deceased's wife. The Dharwad Police subsequent to his murder arrested six persons and charge sheeted them for murder. The probe was later transferred to CBI.

For context, on April 16, Special Court Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat had pronounced the quantum of sentence as life term imprisonment wherein the accused, including Vinay Kulkarni were physically present.

The trial court had also awarded Rs 16 Lakhs as compensation to the children of the deceased BJP Leader. Accused 2-16 and Accused 18 in the case have been awarded with life imprisonment. Accused -19 Chennakeshva Tingarikar, the investigating officer at the time, had been sentenced to 7 years of jail time.

Case Title: Chandrasekhar Indi v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Case No: CRL.A 748/2026