The High Court of Karnataka on Monday ordered issue of notice to the State government and the Special Investigation Team (SIT) on a petition filed by the father of the woman involved in the Ramesh Jarkiholi CD scandal. He alleged that his daughter’s statement was recorded “under pressure, influence and coercion” and that it “was not of her free will and volition”.
Justice Ashok G. Nijagannavar, before whom the petition came up for hearing, adjourned further hearing on the matter. The petitioner has sought a direction for quashing his daughter’s statement before the magistrate, contending that it was recorded “illegally”.
“It is a well-known fact that my daughter was under extraneous influence for the last 15 days or more, and though a complaint is said to have been lodged by her, she was not allowed to appear before the investigation officer or before the court, and it was all through an advocate as her mouthpiece,” the petitioner stated.
According to the petitioner, his daughter had earlier told him that she was not the one who was found in the CD and that she was under tremendous pressure and “not in a position to say anything”.
‘Statement vitiated’
The petitioner claimed that he had learnt that an advocate, Surya Mukundraj, who is also general secretary of the legal cell of Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee, was present at the time of the recording of statement. “The statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC is vitiated for the sole reason of the presence of Mr. Mukundraj as reported in the media,” the petitioner contended.
The petitioner also stated that he had “sensed pressure” on his daughter after he came to know through the media that her statement would be recorded by a magistrate even before she appeared before the investigating agency. He appealed through the media to keep his daughter “in isolation or in my custody or in the custody of the judiciary or some independent authority” to ensure that her statement is free of any pressure.
“The facts and circumstances under which she was produced before the magistrate show that no effort was made to ensure that she made her statement voluntarily,” the petitioner claimed.
