Court gives death sentence to man for killing four of a family
Karwar: The principal and district sessions court of Uttara Kannada awarded a death sentence to a convict in murder case, while sentencing another to life imprisonment. The case involved the brutal killing of four members of a family on Feb 24, 2023 in Halyani Haduvalli village, Bhatkal taluk.The court sentenced Shridhar Janardhan Bhat to life imprisonment, while his son Vinaya Bhat received the death penalty.
Principal and district sessions judge D. Vijayakumar pronounced the judgement. The victims were Shambhu Venkataramana Bhat, his wife Mahadevi Shambhu Bhat, their son Raghavendra alias Raju Bhat, and daughter-in-law Kusuma Raghavendra Bhat.The case originated from property disputes following the death of Vidya Bhat's husband on Sept 8, 2022, at a hospital in Manipal. Vidya, daughter of the first convict and sister of the second convict, had disagreements with Shambhu Bhat regarding property distribution. A partition deed was created on Oct 7, 2022, followed by a private survey. Ongoing disputes led to a non-cognisable report on Dec 12, 2022, at Bhatkal police station.On Feb 24, 2023, both convicts encountered Shambhu Bhat at the plantation, leading to an altercation. Subsequently, a violent confrontation occurred near Shambhu Bhat's house, resulting in Vinay Bhat fatally stabbing Raghavendra Bhat. Kusuma was killed upon arriving at the scene. Shambhu and Mahadevi Bhat were also murdered when they attempted to alert others. The convict then disposed of evidence at their residence.Timappa Sannu Gonda witnessed the murders and provided testimony. Additional witnesses included Jayaram Malla Naik, Gauri Mangala Gonda, and Nityanand Govind Pujari. Forensic expert Kasturi Odayar analysed the weapons, whilst Dr Rahila Sana Patel and Dr Sonali Sood conducted the postmortem.The prosecution, led by Tanuja B Hospattana, presented comprehensive evidence. Chandan Gopal, police inspector, conducted the investigation and filed the chargesheet.The first convict received life imprisonment under IPC Section 302 with a Rs 2 lakh fine, and the second convict was sentenced to death by hanging. Additional penalties under IPC Section 201 included imprisonment and fines for both convicts.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Deccan Herald
37 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
Bareilly court sentences Jat Regiment signalman to life imprisonment for murder of colleague's wife
The court of Sessions Judge Vijendra Tripathi pronounced the verdict on Tuesday after finding Nitesh Pandey guilty of killing fellow personnel Manoj Senapati's wife Sudarshana Senapati (35). The court also imposed a fine of Rs 22,000 on him.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court trashes appeals of two convicts in rape case of minor school girl
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of two convicts challenging the life imprisonment handed down by courts below for kidnapping and raping a 13-year-old girl in 2019 on the pretext of taking her to a picnic. A Bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan on Tuesday (June 10, 2025) rejected the appeal of convicts Sanjay Paikra and Pustam Yadav against the Chhattisgarh High Court verdict. The High Court on August 5, 2024, upheld the trial court's judgement convicting Paikra, Yadav and third accused Santosh Kumar Gupta, the school van driver, in the sensational kidnapping and rape case under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) for offences of kidnapping and raping a class VII student. 'This is a very serious case. You, along with the van driver kidnapped and raped a minor schoolgirl. No indulgence is needed from us. Dismissed,' the Bench said while rejecting the appeal of two convicts. The Bench did not agree to the submissions that the girl was a consenting party and did not raise any alarm during the period when she was kept in solitary confinement. 'She is a minor. This is proved and nothing else is needed,' the Bench said. The trial court had convicted the three accused on October 5, 2021 and had awarded life imprisonment besides imposing a fine of ₹1,000 on them under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which deals with the punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. They were also handed down varying jail terms for other offences, including kidnapping. A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by the survivor and her mother with the police on November 18, 2019.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
How Much Did Vijay Mallya Really Repay? A Deep Dive Into His Viral Podcast Claims
Last Updated: In a viral podcast with Raj Shamani, Vijay Mallya claimed he's being unfairly targeted despite settling his dues. But enforcement records and court findings tell a different story Vijay Mallya claimed he repaid more than he borrowed in a viral podcast with Raj Shamani. (Screengrab/rajshamani) 'To say that I am humbled and overwhelmed is well short of what I truly feel," Vijay Mallya tweeted on June 10, celebrating over 20 million views on his four-hour-long podcast with influencer Raj Shamani. For a man officially declared a fugitive economic offender in India, the moment was more than a milestone; it was a public relations push to reshape his image. To say that I am humbled and overwhelmed is well short of what I truly feel. A big heartfelt thank you to all those who took the time to watch my 4 hour plus podcast with @rajshamani 20 million views on YouTube alone in 4 days and god knows how many more reposts on Instagram and…— Vijay Mallya (@TheVijayMallya) June 9, 2025 In the podcast, the former Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) owner repeated a claim he has made several times before: that he is being unfairly targeted by Indian banks and agencies even though he has already paid back far more than he owed. ' I took loans worth Rs 6,200 crore and have paid Rs 14,000 crore back," he said. The suggestion? He is the real victim of a broken system. But what do the facts say? Claim 1: 'I took loans worth Rs 6,200 crore and have paid Rs 14,000 crore back." Fact-Check: Mallya's figure of Rs 6,200 crore refers only to the principal borrowed by Kingfisher Airlines and related entities from a consortium of 17 banks. However, under standard banking procedures, any loan accrues interest until it is fully repaid. In cases of default, banks additionally impose penal interest and other charges. When Kingfisher Airlines defaulted, the matter was taken to the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in 2013. As per the DRT's decree, by April 10, 2019, the total dues including principal, accumulated interest, and penalties had risen to Rs 17,781 crore. Of this amount, Rs 10,815 crore was recovered — not from payments made by Mallya himself, but through court-monitored sales of attached assets, including the Kingfisher Villa in Goa and shares in United Breweries. These assets were seized and liquidated under provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), after Mallya was declared a fugitive economic offender. The remaining unpaid amount, as reported by TOI citing government sources, still stands at Rs 6,997 crore. Mallya's claim of having 'repaid" Rs 14,000 crore is misleading on two fronts: first, it conflates enforced recoveries with voluntary repayment; and second, it disregards the legitimate accrual of interest and penal charges, which apply to all defaulters — corporate or individual. The Rs 14,000 crore figure appears to aggregate court-ordered recoveries and asset sales made without his cooperation. In financial and legal terms, repayment implies voluntary settlement of dues by the borrower. That did not happen in this case. Claim 2: 'I have committed no fraud. I always intended to repay." Fact-Check: Mallya frames his actions as an unfortunate consequence of business failure, suggesting that his intention to repay should absolve him of wrongdoing. However, Indian law, particularly under the Reserve Bank of India's guidelines, makes a clear distinction between business failure and wilful default. A wilful defaulter is someone who has the capacity to repay but chooses not to. In Mallya's case, Indian banks officially declared him a wilful defaulter, which means he had both the means and opportunities to repay, but deliberately defaulted. Further, investigative agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) have unearthed substantial evidence of fund diversion. Approximately Rs 3,500 crore out of the borrowed sum was not used for operational expenses of Kingfisher Airlines, but instead diverted to entities such as the Force India Formula One team, and to support personal luxury expenditures. One high-profile example is the $40 million (approximately Rs 342 crore) payout Mallya received from Diageo in 2016. Despite a standing personal guarantee agreement with Indian lenders, he transferred this sum to accounts belonging to his family members — a direct violation of the agreement, and an act the Supreme Court later found him guilty of in a contempt case. Fraud, under Indian law, does not hinge on a person's stated intent but on the pattern of actions, fund movement, and non-compliance with agreements. Mallya's repeated claims of good intent are contradicted by financial records, court findings, and his own conduct, including his flight from India while legal proceedings were ongoing. Fact-Check: Mallya's claim about informing then Finance Minister Arun Jaitley has no official documentation. Jaitley, in a 2018 blog post and press interaction, said Mallya made an unsolicited approach in the corridors of Parliament and mentioned a possible settlement. Jaitley stated he told Mallya to speak with the banks. No meeting was scheduled, and no discussion was entertained. Mallya has repeatedly used this claim to suggest he did not abscond secretly. But a passing remark does not qualify as formal disclosure. Claim 4: 'My case is not of criminal nature. It's only about business failure." Fact-Check: Mallya's legal troubles go far beyond a failed airline. He faces criminal charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Indian Penal Code, and other financial regulations. In 2022, the Supreme Court sentenced him to four months' imprisonment in a contempt case. Separately, a non-bailable warrant was issued in a service tax evasion case where Rs 100 crore collected from customers was not deposited with the government. His extradition has also been approved by a UK court, though delayed by pending asylum-related appeals. This is not a civil default — it's a layered legal case involving fraud, evasion, and wilful deceit. Claim 5: 'My company's assets were undervalued." Fact-Check: Mallya claims his assets were sold below their real value during recovery. However, there is no credible evidence showing that the banks undervalued his properties. In fact, when applying for loans, Mallya had submitted inflated estimates, including valuing Kingfisher Airlines at $500 million, far above what the company was realistically worth, given its poor financial performance. When banks tried to recover dues, they auctioned attached assets such as the Kingfisher Villa and UB shares. These were sold under court-monitored public processes that followed due legal procedures, including open bidding. The lower sale prices were likely a result of legal complications, reduced brand value, and distress sale conditions — not undervaluation by banks. There's no independent valuation or legal finding that supports Mallya's assertion of systemic undervaluation. Instead, the inflated figures during borrowing and his failure to repay left banks with limited options for asset realisation. Claim 6: 'I never misused company funds." Fact-Check: The ED tracked Rs 241 crore transferred from Kingfisher Airlines' accounts to the Force India F1 team. In addition, Mallya used Rs 100 crore to operate a personal aircraft — costs borne by a debt-ridden airline. He also made foreign property acquisitions amounting to Rs 330 crore while Kingfisher employees were going unpaid. These findings, based on transaction records and corporate audits, clearly show that company funds were redirected to sustain personal and unrelated commercial interests. Claim 7: 'I never denied salaries or dues to employees." Fact-Check: Kingfisher Airlines stopped paying salaries by mid-2012. Employee PF contributions and deducted taxes, amounting to Rs 371 crore, were not deposited with the authorities. Protests and hunger strikes were staged across the country. At the same time, Mallya spent Rs 28 crore in a single IPL auction to acquire players like Yuvraj Singh. His IPL team, foreign villas, and yacht appearances continued even as his employees struggled to survive. This disproves his claim of financial helplessness and contradicts his statement about employee compensation. Claim 8: 'I was advised by Pranab Mukherjee to not shut Kingfisher during the 2008 crisis." Fact-Check: Mallya cites a verbal exchange with the late Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee as the reason he continued operations during a financially turbulent period. However, this anecdote has never been substantiated through any official record, and Mukherjee is no longer alive to confirm or deny the interaction. Even if such advice was given informally, it would not absolve a promoter from conducting proper financial assessments or fulfilling fiduciary duties. Claim 9: 'I used my own funds to settle loans." Fact-Check: Mallya suggests he personally repaid the banks, but there is no record of any voluntary payment made by him after he left India in 2016. The Rs 10,815 crore recovered so far came from the sale of assets seized under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act — including Kingfisher Villa, United Breweries shares, and other properties. These were auctioned by banks and enforcement agencies under court supervision. These recoveries were not the result of any direct financial contribution by Mallya, but of asset liquidation authorised by Indian courts. By definition, this does not qualify as personal repayment. Mallya's role in these recoveries was not cooperative; it was compelled by law. Claim 10: 'The media is biased and out to get me." Fact-Check: The accusations against Mallya are backed by extensive investigative findings from Indian agencies (ED, CBI, SFIO), international cooperation (UK court rulings), and Supreme Court orders. The label of 'fugitive economic offender' was formalised under a law passed in 2018 — largely due to high-profile cases like his. Media coverage may shape perception, but his legal troubles are rooted in well-documented legal violations. FINAL WORD Mallya's podcast may have drawn millions of views, but public sympathy and social media traction do not erase the financial, legal, and criminal realities surrounding his case. His key claims, from repayment figures to asset undervaluation, employee dues, and misuse of funds, are contradicted by court-monitored recoveries, enforcement findings, and bank records. top videos View all He remains a declared fugitive economic offender with an outstanding liability of nearly Rs 7,000 crore. Investigations have established fund diversion, wilful default, and procedural violations. While Mallya uses platforms like podcasts to reframe his story, the facts are already on record, and they tell a very different version. Ultimately, it is not intention or image but legal accountability that defines this case. And in that, the numbers and documents speak louder than words. About the Author News Desk The News Desk is a team of passionate editors and writers who break and analyse the most important events unfolding in India and abroad. From live updates to exclusive reports to in-depth explainers, the Desk More Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : Kingfisher Airlines podcast Vijay Mallya Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 11, 2025, 12:31 IST News india How Much Did Vijay Mallya Really Repay? A Deep Dive Into His Viral Podcast Claims
