In the early hours of May 1, 2015, the body of an adult male was found lying by the roadside near the Kanivemane bridge in Shikaripura village under Karnataka’s Shivamogga district. The man had visible injuries, including wounds to his head and abrasions on his body. At first glance, the scene suggested a tragic but familiar rural incident – a pedestrian struck by a vehicle in the early hours, the driver fleeing before anyone could intervene.
The deceased was soon identified as Umesh, 35, a resident of a nearby village. His brother, Kumar, 43, arrived at the scene with an explanation that seemed to fit. “He (Umesh) had gone for his regular morning walk around 4.30 am,” Kumar told the police. “Somewhere along the bridge, an unidentified vehicle must have hit him and sped away.”
On paper, it was a straightforward case. The police registered it as a hit-and-run, the body was sent for postmortem, and the case moved into the routine flow of rural policing. But something did not sit right. Umesh was physically disabled, with limited mobility. The idea that he had ventured out alone before dawn, covering any significant distance on foot, seemed unlikely to those who knew him.
Weeks passed, then months. The file remained technically open but practically dormant. To all appearances, a tragic accident had occurred. Yet beneath the surface, a family refused to accept the narrative.
Family’s persistence and the turning point
Even as the system appeared to settle the case, Umesh’s mother and maternal uncle could not reconcile themselves to the official explanation. The story provided by Kumar felt too neat, too aligned with what the scene suggested. Their doubts were not founded on one piece of evidence but on patterns they had observed: Kumar’s behaviour, the circumstances leading up to Umesh’s death, and the limitations imposed by Umesh’s condition.
They repeatedly approached the police, first locally and then at higher levels, insisting that the death was not an accident. Multiple petitions were submitted, urging investigators to examine the case more closely. For months, however, their concerns went unheeded, and the case remained classified as a routine hit-and-run.
The first concrete lead came in December 2015, more than seven months after Umesh’s death. His maternal uncle approached the police with a statement that directly contradicted the accident theory. He claimed that, weeks before the incident, Kumar had visited the family and insisted on taking Umesh with him, assuring them he would take care of him. The uncle also revealed that Kumar had pressured his sister (Umesh and Kumar’s mother) to sign certain documents. When she refused, arguments broke out, yet Kumar disregarded her objections and took Umesh along.
Story continues below this ad
This allegation prompted immediate action. By then, the investigating officer at the Saklipura Rural Police Station had changed. Chandrappa A, newly appointed, reopened the case and began a comprehensive probe. Investigators retraced the steps of the original inquiry, recorded fresh statements from villagers and witnesses, and revisited the scene.
Investigating Officer Chandrappa A (Photo Credit: Special Arrangement)
“By the time I took charge, the case had already been treated as a hit-and-run. The chargesheet had been prepared but not submitted to the court,” Chandrappa recalled. “The family had approached senior officers repeatedly, insisting that the death was suspicious and pointing towards Kumar.”
Starting from scratch, Chandrappa reviewed the file in detail and spoke to villagers. The inconsistencies began to emerge. Chief among them was Umesh’s mobility. “His brother said he had gone for a morning walk. But villagers told us he could barely walk long distances. That contradiction was significant,” he said.
The driver initially linked to the alleged accident could not give a clear account, and no evidence connected him to the incident. As the accident story weakened, attention shifted firmly to Kumar.
Money, method, and motive
Story continues below this ad
The next breakthrough came not from the roadside, but from financial records. Investigators discovered that multiple insurance policies had been taken out in Umesh’s name in the months preceding his death, totalling approximately Rs 45 lakh, with Kumar listed as the nominee in each case.
Further examination revealed attempts to claim the policies even before the narrative of an accident could have unfolded. Bank and insurance records confirmed that Kumar had visited officials to enquire about processing claims. Family members said he had repeatedly argued with their mother over her signature on insurance documents.
“That showed planning. This wasn’t just about what happened that morning; it had been thought out in advance,” Chandrappa said.
Investigators also traced a vehicle, a Canter, which Kumar had arranged the night before the accident under the pretext of routine work. The owner confirmed that Kumar had taken control of it, placing him in possession of a potential instrument for staging the accident.
Story continues below this ad
With motive, means, and inconsistencies in his story aligned, Kumar was brought in for intensive interrogation. “I questioned him for nearly three hours. He kept denying everything, repeating, ‘How can I harm my own brother?’” Chandrappa recalled.
During these sessions, investigators presented evidence of Kumar’s insurance claims, his visits to bank officials, and the family’s testimony about disputes over signatures. Piece by piece, the narrative began to close in. “At one point, he realised the evidence was too strong to deny,” Chandrappa said.
Eventually, Kumar confessed. He admitted to taking Umesh out early that morning in the Canter. At a secluded stretch, he asked Umesh to step down, citing a mechanical issue. When Umesh was in front of the vehicle, Kumar accelerated, running him over deliberately. The act was staged to appear as a hit-and-run, masking his intent.
The case, which had initially been registered under Section 304A (causing death by negligence), was revised to Section 302 (murder), with additional charges for destruction of evidence. The confession revealed that it was a calculated, premeditated act motivated by monetary gain.
Conviction
Story continues below this ad
In the judgment dated November 13, 2017, Hareesha A, 3rd additional sessions judge at Shivamogga, said, “The circumstantial evidence… combination of facts creating a network through which there is no escape for the accused, because the facts taken as a whole do not admit of any inference but of his guilt. It is a settled preposition of law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution can base its case even on the conduct of the accused prior and subsequent to the incident.
“Considering the overall evidence adduced by the prosecution I am of the view that the prosecution proved the guilt of accused by adducing cogent evidence. There would be no reason to draw any other inference than the guilt of the accused. All the circumstances on which the prosecution based its case has fully established by acceptable evidence. The proved circumstances unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused.”
Soon after the lower court’s verdict, Kumar approached the Karnataka High Court by filing a criminal appeal. On January 7 this year, Justice H P Sandesh upheld the lower court’s order. In the order, he said that the trial court had taken the pain in appreciating the evidence of the chain of circumstances in committing the murder. “We do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court in convicting the accused considering each and every circumstance,” the order said.
