RTI activist murder case: HC acquits ex-corporator, husband

The High Court of Karnataka has set aside the life imprisonment awarded to former BBMP corporator Gowramma C G, her husband C Govindaraju and 10 others in the murder of RTI activist Lingaraju.

A division bench headed by Justice K Somashekar set aside the conviction stating that there are no clinching circumstances against the appellants (convicts) in order to come to the conclusion that they had committed the murder as narrated in the theory of the prosecution.

Lingaraju, who was also an editor of a newspaper Maha Prachanda, was hacked to death near his residence on November 20, 2012, days after the Lokayukta police raided the houses of Gowramma and her driver. Gowramma, who was then corporator of Azad Nagar ward, was accused of having assets disproportionate to her known sources of income. The raid was based on the complaint filed by Lingaraju.

Lingaraju’s wife Uma Devi, an eyewitness to the murder, and their son Karthik, were prime witnesses in the case. The division bench noted that both these witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution as regards the contents of their statements made under Section 164 of the CrPC. The court said that both Uma Devi and Karthik did not stand by their statements given before the Investigating Officer relating to identification of the assailants involved in the murder. The identification parade had taken place at the Parappana Agrahara prison in January 2013.

The court further said that there is evidence to suggest that Gowramma, her husband Govindaraju and deceased Lingaraju were relatives. “But as regards the motive factor to indicate that there was an animosity developed between them and conspiratorial meetings were held among the persons arraigned as accused to eliminate the deceased Lingaraju by engaging supari killers, there is no evidence forthcoming on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused. There is no cogent, corroborative and positive evidence relating to the said aspect on the part of the prosecution,” the court said.

The court also said that out of the 90 witnesses, even though 44 witnesses have given their evidence on the part of prosecution, all of them are official witnesses and none of the evidence of those witnesses is directly incriminating against the appellants, the court said.