It was case of consesual sex, not rape, Nithyananda's counsel tells High Court

It was case of consesual sex, not rape, Nithyananda's counsel tells High Court

It was case of consesual sex, not rape, Nithyananda's counsel tells High Court

Defending the self-styled godman Nithyananda in the rape case filed against him by an NRI woman, his counsel C V Nagesh on Friday informed the High Court of Karnataka that the prosecution records show that it was a case of consensual sex and not sexual assault as alleged.

The complainant, a former disciple of Nithyananda, has accused him of sexually assaulting her during her stay at his ashram near Bidadi on the outskirts of Bengaluru.

Justice R B Budihal was hearing a petition filed by Nithyananda challenging the Ramanagaram court's order to frame charges against him in the rape case while rejecting his plea to discharge him from the case.

Nagesh submitted that the complainant has a history of having multiple partners and also suffers from a communicable sexually transmitted disease.

He said that the complainant was a well-educated, married woman and the US citizen who was about to give birth to a child. She had lived in Nithyananda's ashram for a few years. She had consensual sex with Nithyananda for gaining spiritual bliss, which was assured by him. Nagesh also brought to the notice of the court that important evidence collected by the investigation officer had not been produced before the trial court.

Statements of 48 witnesses were collected, which were not looked into by the court while passing the judgement. The trial court only looked into those evidence that the prosecution chose to rely upon. The hallmark of investigation is 'elementary fairness,' which has been denied, he mentioned.

Apart from Nithyananda, five others accused in the case are Gopala Sheelam Reddy alias Nithya Bhakthananda; Shiva Vallabhaneni alias Nithya Sachidananda; Danasekaran alias Nithya Sadananda; Ragini alias Maa Nithya Sachidananda; and Jamuna Rani alias Maa Nithyananda. They too have moved the high court questioning the trial court's order rejecting their applications seeking discharge from the case.

The prosecution stated that Nithyananda never cooperated for a medical examination as required by the investigation officer. Moreover, he moved the court when there was strong evidence against him.

DH Newsletter Privacy Policy Get top news in your inbox daily
GET IT
Comments (+)