Goa court clears Kannadiga in high-profile murder case

Bengaluru

In a significant development in one of Goa’s most closely followed murder cases, the Additional Sessions Judge-2 (FTC-2) Court at Merces has discharged three accused, including a Bengaluru-based construction site supervisor, after concluding that there was “absolutely no incriminating substance” to frame charges of murder and criminal conspiracy against them.

The discharge orders, pronounced on July 8 by the judge Shilpa S Pandit in Sessions Case (302) No. 1/2026, brought an end to the prosecution against Lokesh Puttaswamy (53), a construction site supervisor from K H Ranganatha Colony on Mysore Road in Bengaluru, Rohit Kumar Prajapati (20), a daily-wage JCB operator from Jharkhand, and Viji Suppan (36), a cook from Tamil Nadu. The orders were passed under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Senior Advocate  K V Dhananjay, assisted by Advocates Ojaswi, Ananya K and Dheeraj S J, represented the three accused. The court held that there was no material to frame charges under Sections 103(1) and 61(2)(a) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The prosecution stemmed from the death of 63-year-old Umakant Raghoba Khot, a resident of Morjim, on November 5, 2025. The case quickly became one of the most discussed criminal prosecutions in North Goa after four persons described as “outsiders” — a property owner from Telangana and three migrant workers from Karnataka, Jharkhand and Tamil Nadu — were accused of murder. The incident triggered public protests demanding action against outsiders, while the Goa Chief Minister publicly called for stringent punishment in the case.

The hearings before the Merces court drew considerable attention from the legal fraternity, with members of the Bar attending proceedings during arguments on both the bail applications and the subsequent discharge petitions. According to the defence, its case rested entirely on the prosecution’s own records rather than emotional or public considerations.

Justice Shilpa S. Pandit examined every witness statement forming part of the chargesheet, including those of labourers, contractors, the civil engineer, the village Talathi and members of the deceased’s family. The court also considered more than 40 judicial precedents cited during arguments, including Thulia Kali, Ram Prakash Chadha and the Supreme Court judgment in P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, which reiterates that a court considering the framing of charges is not expected to function as “a mere post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution.”

Earlier, on May 18, 2026, the same court had granted bail to all three accused. Those bail orders attracted attention within legal circles in Goa, Bengaluru and Delhi for their reasoning. The discharge orders delivered on July 8 have similarly generated discussion among members of the legal fraternity because they terminated the prosecution before charges could even be framed.

Lokesh Puttaswamy had travelled from Bengaluru to Goa on November 3, 2025, as part of his employment at a construction site. Two days later, following the death of Umakant Khot on a road adjacent to the construction site, he was arrested and remained in custody for more than six months before securing bail. He has now been discharged after nearly eight months from the date of his arrest.

According to the prosecution, the deceased, who was claimed to be an agricultural tenant, was murdered for opposing illegal construction. The FIR was registered at 9.31 p.m. on November 6, 2025, nearly 32 hours after the death and after the post-mortem findings had become known. The complaint, filed by the deceased’s nephew, a real estate businessman, named only the Telangana-based property owner, Ashok, while referring to the remaining accused as unidentified “henchmen.”

However, the court noted that the prosecution’s own records showed the property owner had obtained Technical Clearance from the Town and Country Planning Department, a Health No Objection Certificate from the Directorate of Health Services and a Construction Licence from the Village Panchayat of Morjim before commencing construction. Official tenancy records in Form I and XIV did not record the deceased as a tenant. The court also noted that the deceased had never filed any complaint relating to the construction property, and that the only complaint on record, filed in May 2024, concerned a different survey number and its previous owners.

In its findings, the court observed that none of the witnesses stated they had seen any assault involving Accused Nos. 2 to 4. Witnesses merely stated that the three were not seen during the lunch break between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. The court further observed that the complainant had not named the three accused in the FIR and that the medical evidence, including the autopsy report and subsequent clarification, did not indicate their involvement. It also held that call records exchanged among co-workers and the fact that Lokesh Puttaswamy’s air ticket had been booked by his employer could not be treated as incriminating circumstances.

The medical evidence placed before the court showed that the deceased’s heart weighed 640 grams, with the main coronary artery being 80-90 per cent blocked. The record also noted that all 17 injuries were on the front or sides of the body, with no injury to the back of the head, no skull fracture, no intracranial haemorrhage and no defensive wounds. The autopsy surgeon acknowledged that the deceased’s age and medical condition made him susceptible to fatal head injury even from trivial trauma. The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohammad Yasin, where a comparatively less diseased heart was held to present a high risk of sudden death with or without provocation.

The court’s decision is regarded as unusual because relief at the stage before framing of charges is considered rare in murder prosecutions. After granting bail on May 18, the Sessions Court proceeded to discharge all three accused on July 8, holding that there was insufficient material even to frame charges.

The order also highlighted the circumstances surrounding the accused. Viji Suppan, the cook, was the person who discovered the deceased lying on the road, alerted his family, brought the deceased’s daughter to the spot on his scooter and handed her his mobile phone to call an ambulance before later being arrested. Rohit Kumar Prajapati, a 20-year-old labourer from Jharkhand, was stated to have been accounted for at the construction site by a co-worker throughout the day. Lokesh Puttaswamy now returns to Bengaluru following the termination of the prosecution against him.

Under Section 250 of the BNSS, the discharge signifies that the Sessions Court found no sufficient grounds to frame charges, effectively bringing the prosecution against the three accused to an end before the commencement of trial.