[Renukaswamy Murder Case] Pavitra Gowda Didn't Block Deceased Or Lodge Complaint After "Receiving Foul Messages": State Tells Karnataka HC

While opposing the bail plea of Pavitra Gowda–a co-accused in the Renukaswamy Murder case along with Kannada Actor Darshan Thoogudeepa Srinivas, the State of Karnataka told the High Court, that Gowda did not block the deceased on Instagram nor did she lodged a police complaint against him for sending her foul messages as claimed by her. Elaborating on the details Special Public Prosecutor Prasanna Kumar appearing for the State referred to the Instagram messages sent by Renukaswamy to Pavitra and her responses to them. He thereafter submitted before Justice S Vishwajith Shetty, “A-1 (Pavitra) what she should have done on receiving messages from deceased on Instagram, the app provides an option of blocking the user. They did not also file a police complaint.”Kumar said, “Instead A-1 (Pavitra) sent a message from her account to the deceased mentioning----Drop your number. Their case is that he kept on harassing me (her) by sending messages. But the prosecution case is that from February the chat starts. She did not block the account. Thereafter, on June 5, Pavitra (A-1) since the deceased did not respond, gave mobile number of A-3 saying it is her number and telling the deceased to 'please call on this no'”.Seeking bail, Pavitra has argued that that there was no conspiracy entered into between the accused to murder the deceased. Further the prosecution has claimed that the Accused no 4 who is the President of the Darshan Fan Association in Chitradurga was instructed by Accused no. 3 to follow the deceased in Chitradurga when he informed him that he was near the local court. Kumar said, “On June 8, the accused A-4, 6 and 7, followed the deceased in auto and it is captured in CCTV cameras and their location is also captured. The accused sitting in the auto took photos of the deceased. They forwarded the photo to A-10 to confirm whether it is this man”. "Then they went near a petrol bunk and a car of A-8 came and he (Deceased) was made to enter the vehicle and made to sit in the middle. The statement of the accused is that since 'you (deceased) sent derogatory messages to A-1 (Pavitra), the A-2 (Darshan) wants to see you. You confess and then we will leave you'. Following which he was brought to Bengaluru," he said. This Kumar said shows the ingredient of abduction. He said that the car was then brought to the shed which has witnessed by six witnesses. The prosecution has relied on technical evidence collected in the form of Call Data records, CCTV footage to debunk the argument of the accused that the deceased travelled to Bengaluru on his own and was not abducted from Chitradurga. At the beginning of the hearing the prosecution urged the court to cancel the interim medical bail granted to Darshan as there was no progress in regards to the surgery he was required to undergo. Kumar contended, “I consulted a doctor and found that if surgery is required, the patient will be given a tablet costing Rs 2 and the Blood Pressure levels will come down within 24-hours. If a patient who has suffered an accident and is also having blood pressure and requires surgery then anesthesia given will take care.” He argued that “For five weeks they are not doing anything. My submission is that the interim bail should be cancelled and ask him (A-2) surrender and then consider his regular bail application. There is misuse of the sympathy shown by this court.” However, the court while asking Kumar to begin his submissions orally said, “These documents were available even before the arguments began in the case. You could have filed an application to cancel the bail. Now that after arguments have commenced. How can you say that you (Darshan) surrender first and then hear his bail application. You begin your submissions.” The court will continue further hearing on December 9. Darshan and 16 others have been charged for offences punishable under Section 120B, (Conspiracy), 201 (destruction of evidence), 364 (Abduction/kidnapping), 302 (murder) and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Case Title: Darshan v. State of KarnatakaCase No: CRL.P 11096/2024

[Renukaswamy Murder Case] Pavitra Gowda Didn't Block Deceased Or Lodge Complaint After "Receiving Foul Messages": State Tells Karnataka HC

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mustafa Plumber

[Renukaswamy Murder Case] Pavitra Gowda Didn't Block Deceased Or Lodge Complaint After "Receiving Foul Messages": State Tells Karnataka HC

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers