HC rejects corporator's appeal
While rejecting the petition, a division bench comprising Chief Justice D H Waghela and Justice B V Nagarathna said, “Recalling the observation is not possible at this juncture. Such observations will not have any consequence. We are confident that the trial court will decide based on material and will not be carried away by the observation of the High Court.”
Gowramma submitted that the bench on December 10, 2012 had observed that the police had not arrested her despite the information that she had pledged her jewellery to pay the supari killers to eliminate Lingaraju. Senior counsel Ravi B Naik, appearing for Gowramma, said that although the police had not suspected her involvement in the crime, they arrested her on December 12, 2012 following the High Court observations.
“Doubts were expressed whether she pledged her jewellery to pay the supari killers. Based on the observations, a case was filed against her. She was taken into custody and released on bail after four months. The trial court should not be influenced by this. There is no other material against her except that Rs 20 lakh was raised by pledging her jewellery,” he added. Amicus curiae Hashmath Pasha said the allegations against the corporator were based on the fact found by the investigation officers who discovered that the accused had pledged her jewellery. “It is mentioned in the remand report dated December 5, 2012,” he said.
When Pasha submitted that she had also made a voluntary statement before the police and that there was evidence that her brother pledged the jewelery on her behalf, Naik said the jewellery was pledged to raise money for the corporator’s daughter’s marriage.