Renukaswamy Murder Case: Darshan's Lawyer Points Out Anomalies in Police Chargesheet

Actors Darshan Thoogudeepa and Pavithra Gowda’s bail application was heard on October 5 in the Bengaluru High Court. Both actors are in jail as prime suspects in the Renukaswamy murder case. In the court session, senior advocate and a prominent criminal lawyer CV Nagesh put forward his arguments from Darshan’s side. Nagesh didn’t ask for bail for his client but cited all the possible reasons why Darshan should be given bail in the Renukaswamy murder case. Nagesh also pointed out an anomaly in the police chargesheet. As the case started, the criminal lawyer started speaking against the media. According to the lawyer, he believed that the court had not ordered the proceedings against his client based on the media trial. He also got the authorities to zoom in on Renukaswamy’s face and said that it had not been eaten by the dogs as told in the media. The criminal lawyer said that his client is behind bars. He said that the court should reprimand the investigating officer for preparing a bad investigating report.

CV Nagesh cited the fact that a PSI (Police Sub Inspector) Vinay had become a witness for Darshan and argued that there were omissions. According to Nagesh, the PSI told him on the phone on June 8 that the accused had surrendered on June 9. It has been shown that the other witnesses have also given their statements on June 9. The voluntary statement of the accused Darshan was recorded on June 10, and he was arrested on June 11.

Nagesh said that the authorities recorded the statement of all the accused on June 12. The criminal lawyer argued that how come the authorities recorded the statement in 3 days without conducting a comprehensive investigation? Nagesh said that if the judge looks at all the circumstances, it looks like the police created the evidence. He alleged that all this appears to be evidence tampering.

After these arguments, CV Nagesh highlighted all the differences in Darshan’s clothes, slippers and shoes, recovered items, and the housekeeper’s statement. After hearing the argument of the criminal lawyer, the judge continued the argument till 12:30 pm and adjourned the court.