Back
Renukaswamy Murder Case: Darshan Moves Against Denial of for Testimony
Jailed Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa has approached the challenging a trial court order that refused his request to be physically produced during witness testimony in the high-profile Renukaswamy murder case. The petition, filed under , argues that the ongoing (VC) arrangement is afflicted with frequent technical interruptions, making it impossible for him to hear witnesses clearly, consult with his lawyers effectively, and raise objections in real time. The actor asserts that this denial of physical presence violates his fundamental right to a under .
The had on rejected the application filed by Darshan and co-accused Nagaraju under , which sought . Instead, the trial court directed that the accused continue to appear via VC, citing security concerns and the extensive logistical coordination required for . The court noted that bringing Darshan to court would demand substantial police deployment and risk creating a “mob-like situation” on the premises, thereby disrupting effective judicial administration.
The Technical and Arguments
Darshan’s counsel had argued that the VC facility at and the trial court suffers from persistent connectivity problems and equipment that has not been upgraded regularly. With the prosecution listing 272 witnesses — of whom around 150 are expected to be examined — the defense contended that the voluminous case records require extensive in-person meetings between the accused and his legal team. They emphasized that the right to a encompasses continuous and meaningful consultation during trial, which cannot be achieved through a glitch-ridden virtual platform.
In his , Darshan specifically claims that technical glitches have prevented him from properly hearing witness statements, giving timely instructions to his advocates, or raising objections during and . He argues that a witness should record his or her statement in the physical presence of the accused — a principle embedded in , which requires evidence to be taken in the presence of the accused unless otherwise provided. The petition contends that the trial court overlooked the qualitative difference between VC and physical presence, particularly when the technology fails.
The Trial Court’s Reasoning
The trial court, in rejecting the plea, relied on , which permit recording evidence through audio-video electronic means. It observed that no prejudice or denial of fair opportunity had been demonstrated by the accused, and that the number of advocate meetings available to inmates and the continuous efforts to facilitate interaction between accused and advocates were adequate. The court also noted that there had been no persistent technical failure so far, though it directed the registry to ensure competent technical personnel are deputed to keep the VC facility functional.
The court further highlighted the practical difficulties: “The of the accused on every hearing date would require substantial deployment of police personnel and logistical coordination thereby causing unnecessary burden upon the State machinery and affecting effective judicial administration owing to a mob like situation in Court Hall.” This reasoning reflects the balancing act trial courts often face between security and the accused’s rights in high-profile cases.
Background of the Murder Case
Darshan, his partner Pavithra Gowda, and 15 others are facing trial for the alleged abduction, torture, and murder of 33-year-old Renukaswamy in . The victim, a fan from Chitradurga, is said to have sent obscene messages to Pavithra Gowda, which Darshan reportedly found offensive. According to the prosecution, Renukaswamy was abducted, taken to a shed in Bengaluru, tortured, and his body dumped near a stormwater drain. So far, statements of 23 witnesses have been recorded. The earlier cancelled Darshan’s and ordered his re-arrest, directing that the trial proceed on a without VIP privileges.
Separately, the trial court has granted to accused Pradosh, who offered to turn , and Darshan has challenged that decision before the as well. Pavithra Gowda has also recently sought a change of prison barrack citing health concerns.
Legal Implications for Criminal Procedure
The High Court’s upcoming decision will have significant implications for the use of video conferencing in criminal trials, especially in cases involving multiple witnesses and high-security risks. While the BNSS expressly permits electronic recording of evidence — a reform intended to expedite trials and reduce logistical burdens — the question remains whether an accused’s is fully satisfied when technical glitches impede real-time communication.
Precedents such as State of Maharashtra v. Praful Desai () have upheld the use of video conferencing for recording evidence, provided the accused can see and hear the proceedings and communicate with counsel. However, subsequent decisions have also stressed that the quality of the VC link must be adequate and that any persistent failure may warrant . Darshan’s case presents an opportunity for the to clarify the standard of “adequate” technology and the circumstances under which a trial court must order despite security concerns.
If the High Court allows , it may slow down the trial due to security arrangements, but it would reinforce the primacy of the accused’s . Conversely, if it upholds the trial court order, it could encourage wider adoption of VC in sensitive cases, potentially setting a precedent that logistical efficiency can override individual rights unless the accused proves .
Conclusion
The is expected to hear Darshan’s petition in the coming days. The outcome will be closely watched by criminal law practitioners, prison authorities, and trial court judges grappling with the tension between technology-driven efficiency and constitutional guarantees. As the Renukaswamy murder trial proceeds, the procedural question of how the accused appears in court may prove as consequential as the substantive allegations themselves.
