Back
Three accused seek in Darshan murder case before Bengaluru court
In a significant twist within the high-profile , three accused have moved the seeking and permission to turn approvers—a move that could substantially alter the prosecution's narrative against jailed Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa and his . The applications were filed by Accused No. 14, Pradosh, and subsequently by Accused No. 8, Ravi Shankar, and Accused No. 10, Vinay. During a hearing on Thursday, the heard extensive arguments on Pradosh's plea and reserved its order until , with the next hearing scheduled for Monday.
The case stems from the alleged abduction and murder of Renukaswamy, a 33-year-old fan from Chitradurga, who authorities say was killed over obscene messages he sent to actor Pavithra Gowda, Darshan's partner. The murder reportedly occurred in , with the body later dumped near a stormwater drain in Bengaluru. Darshan, Pavithra Gowda, and 16 others were arrested and . The recently cancelled Darshan's , directing his immediate re-arrest and ordering that no VIP privileges be extended to him in prison.
The Approver Applications
Pradosh's application, filed under the provisions of the , expresses his willingness to reveal the "complete truth" behind the crime. His plea, presented through , narrates the alleged assault on Renukaswamy and claims that Pradosh repeatedly tried to stop Darshan and others. The prosecution, represented by , has consented to Pradosh's request by submitting a memo to the 59th CCH Court, subject to conditions including making a of every accused's role.
Ravi Shankar and Vinay, who are currently out on , have also filed separate applications seeking . Their counsels urged the court to consider their clients as well, but Pradosh's advocate argued that the court should first record Pradosh's statement before considering the later applications. He contended that the prosecution alone has the authority to decide who should be made an approver.
Prosecution's Consent and Objections
During the hearing, SPP Prasanna Kumar argued that the remaining accused have no legal right to object to an application seeking . He submitted that while the remaining accused may challenge the procedure adopted by the prosecution and the court, they cannot object to the prosecution's decision to consider an accused for . The SPP also informed the court that the prosecution's consent had been given after considering Pradosh's statement.
Darshan's counsel,
, strongly opposed the move, arguing that the defence had not been informed about the filing during the previous hearing and sought a copy of the plea. He contended that
cannot be granted immediately upon an accused seeking it and insisted that the accused's statement must first be recorded before the prosecution extends its consent.
"An approver should aid the cause of justice rather than merely strengthen the prosecution's case,"
he argued.
The SPP relied on a order in the , which involved an approver in the . He argued that courts must evaluate whether the accused seeking is the or someone with a comparatively lesser role before deciding on the application.
Legal Framework on Approvers
The concept of approver testimony is rooted in , which allows a criminal court to grant to an accused on condition of making a "" of the circumstances of the offence. The provision is designed to unravel complex conspiracies where direct evidence may be elusive. The decision to grant rests with the court, though the prosecution's recommendation carries significant weight. The court must assess the credibility and materiality of the proposed approver's testimony, as well as whether the accused's role is subordinate to that of the principal offenders.
In this case, the chargesheet against Pradosh reveals a deeply incriminating role. Investigators allege that he received Rs 30 lakh from Darshan, arranged for other accused to surrender, was present at the Pattanagere shed where the victim was allegedly confined, informed Darshan about Renukaswamy's death, brought Pavithra Gowda to the shed, and actively participated in the alleged conspiracy. If accepted as an approver, his testimony could serve as crucial , providing an insider's account of the events and the alleged conspiracy.
Implications for the Trial
The potential grant of to Pradosh—and possibly others—could significantly strengthen the prosecution's case. Approver testimony is often a double-edged sword, as courts scrutinize it for and reliability. However, Pradosh's allegations that he tried to stop the assault could position him as a reluctant participant, enhancing his credibility. The decision could also impact the defence strategy, particularly for Darshan, who has maintained his innocence.
Legal experts note that the multiplicity of approver applications raises procedural questions. The court must balance the prosecution's discretion with the accused's right to a . The objections from Darshan's counsel highlight the tension between and . The court's ruling on whether to club the applications or treat them separately will be closely watched.
A Separate Plea for Protection
In a separate application, Pradosh has requested prison authorities to keep him isolated from Darshan and the other accused during , citing fear of pressure and possible intimidation. He sought to be housed in a separate cell and to be produced before the court separately during future hearings. This request underscores the potential risks approvers face, and the court is expected to consider these security concerns when deciding on the matter.
What's Next
The 59th CCH Court has reserved its order on Pradosh's application until . It will also address the objections raised by the other accused regarding the prosecution's decision. The outcome could set a precedent for how similar applications are treated when multiple accused seek simultaneously.
For the legal community, this case illustrates the delicate balance between securing conviction through and ensuring procedural fairness. The court's reasoning in the upcoming order will be a key reference for future approver applications in India. As the trial continues, all eyes remains on the to see whether the approver pleas will reshape the course of this sensational murder case.
