Latest


Sowjanya case: Mother moves police against advocate, alleges bid to undermine SIT probe

  •   Mon, Oct 19 2026 06:02:24 PM
  •  By Daijiworld Media Network

Daijiworld Media Network – Beltangady

Beltangady, October 19: Sowjanya’s mother, Kusumavathi Gowda, has lodged a police complaint against advocate N P Amruthesh, accusing him of attempting to influence the ongoing investigation into the case through public statements that could undermine the Special Investigation Team’s (SIT) probe and deter potential witnesses from coming forward.

The complaint, filed at Dharmasthala police station on October 17 through advocate Vijay Vasu Poojary, alleges that Amruthesh made controversial remarks at a press conference in Bengaluru on October 13, claiming that Sowjanya’s parents had made money from the case and casting doubt on the SIT’s ability to achieve a successful outcome.

The complaint contends that such statements could damage the reputation of the victim’s family, erode public confidence in the investigation and put pressure on potential witnesses who may be willing to assist the SIT. Citing the seriousness of the matter, Kusumavathi has sought appropriate legal action.

‘Impossible to reach a logical conclusion’: Alleged remarks under scanner

According to the complaint, Amruthesh allegedly said at the October 13 press conference in Bengaluru that it would be impossible for the Sowjanya case investigation to reach a logical conclusion, that results could not be expected within three months, and that tracing evidence in a case dating back around 14 years would be difficult.

He is also alleged to have called for Santhosh Rao to be subjected to a fresh investigation.

The complaint points out that the Supreme Court, on September 21, 2026, directed a fresh investigation into the case and prescribed a three-month deadline. Following the order, the Karnataka government constituted an SIT on September 24, and the team began its investigation on October 1.

The complainant argues that pronouncements questioning the investigation’s prospects while the probe is in progress could compromise its perceived impartiality and credibility.

The complaint further states that the press conference remarks were carried by various media organisations and subsequently circulated widely on YouTube, Facebook and WhatsApp, amplifying their potential impact.

Family’s credibility at stake, says complaint

The complaint highlights the role of Sowjanya’s family members in the case, stating that her paternal uncle and aunt were the last to see her alive.

It further states that the First Information Report (FIR) was amended following a complaint lodged by her uncle, Jagadish Gowda. Sowjanya’s father, meanwhile, testified as the first prosecution witness (PW-1), according to the complaint.

Against this backdrop, the complainant alleges that portraying Sowjanya’s parents as having profited financially from the case could undermine the family’s credibility and discourage others from coming forward to testify in support of its claims.

The complaint also cites the Supreme Court’s observations that individuals possessing important information had not been treated as witnesses by the three investigating agencies that previously handled the case.

It states that eight potential witnesses were identified after the court ordered witness protection.

The complainant contends that portraying the family as pursuing the case for financial gain could sow doubts among other potential witnesses and discourage them from cooperating with the SIT at a crucial stage of the investigation.

Alleged contravention of Supreme Court directions

The complaint states that Santhosh Rao has already faced trial and been acquitted, and alleges that the Supreme Court’s directions in its judgment impose restrictions on subjecting him to a fresh investigation.

Against this backdrop, Amruthesh’s alleged call for a fresh investigation into Rao is described in the complaint as contrary to the court’s directions.

The complainant further argues that declaring an investigation destined to fail before it has run its course could undermine confidence in the impartiality and credibility of the process.

Murder of key witness Ravi Poojary cited
The complaint also draws attention to the murder of Ravi Poojary, described as an important witness in the case.

It states that the Sessions Court referred to his murder in an order dated February 7, 2017. The complaint also cites the court’s observation that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had not been aware of the development.

Further, the complainant refers to the Supreme Court’s criticism of the functioning of the investigating agencies. The court, according to the complaint, observed that the possibility of the real perpetrators manipulating the investigation to suit their own interests could not be ruled out.

These observations are cited to underline the need for a fair, independent and credible investigation, free from statements that could influence witnesses or public perception.

Earlier criminal case and bail conditions mentioned

The complaint also refers to Criminal Case No. 218/2013, registered at Bengaluru’s High Grounds police station, and the associated C.C. No. 20735/2013, in which Amruthesh was allegedly named as the seventh accused.

According to the complaint, charges in that case were brought under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It further states that a condition prohibiting involvement in criminal activity was imposed while granting him anticipatory bail.

The complainant has requested that, if the SIT finds that the present incident involves a criminal offence, the matter be brought to the attention of the appropriate prosecuting agency.

Section 351 of BNS invoked; Protection sought for eight potential witnesses

The complaint calls for examination of whether the alleged conduct attracts provisions relating to criminal intimidation under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

It also asks the SIT to record the substance of the complaint under Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and obtain an order from the competent magistrate for further investigation.

Kusumavathi has sought a risk assessment covering herself, her family members and the eight potential witnesses named in an additional affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court.

The complaint requests that a threat-analysis report be prepared under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, and forwarded to the competent authority in Dakshina Kannada district for appropriate protective measures.

It also seeks the sharing of relevant evidence and related information with the prosecuting agency handling C.C. No. 20735/2013, arising from Crime No. 218/2013 registered at Bengaluru’s High Grounds Police Station.

The complaint calls for the allegations to be examined and appropriate legal steps to be taken, with particular emphasis on safeguarding potential witnesses and ensuring that the ongoing investigation proceeds without interference.

 

 
  

Top Stories


Leave a Comment

Title: Sowjanya case: Mother moves police against advocate, alleges bid to undermine SIT probe



You have 2000 characters left.

Disclaimer:

Please write your correct name and email address. Kindly do not post any personal, abusive, defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent, discriminatory or unlawful or similar comments. Daijiworld.com will not be responsible for any defamatory message posted under this article.

Please note that sending false messages to insult, defame, intimidate, mislead or deceive people or to intentionally cause public disorder is punishable under law. It is obligatory on Daijiworld to provide the IP address and other details of senders of such comments, to the authority concerned upon request.

Hence, sending offensive comments using daijiworld will be purely at your own risk, and in no way will Daijiworld.com be held responsible.

You might also like