Bengaluru: The trial in the Renukaswamy murder case took a significant turn on Wednesday after a key prosecution witness turned hostile, telling a Bengaluru court that he did not know what had happened at the shed where Renukaswamy was allegedly killed in June 2024. Kannada actor Darshan and his friend Pavithra Gowda, who are accused in the case, appeared before the court through video conference from Parappana Agrahara Central Prison.
The witness, Puneeth MJ, worked at the Pattanagere shed where the alleged murder took place. During his testimony before the 59th City Civil and Sessions Court, Puneeth said he had no knowledge of the events that unfolded at the premises on June 8, 2024.
The development is significant for the prosecution because Puneeth was expected to provide information about activity at the shed on the day of the alleged crime. His testimony, however, differed from the prosecution’s account, prompting the special public prosecutor to cross-examine him on his decision to turn hostile.
The court adjourned the hearing until Thursday, when proceedings are expected to continue.
What did the witness tell the court?
According to the prosecution’s account, Puneeth said three men were already present at the shed when he arrived for work on June 8. He said five more people later arrived in a car but claimed he did not know who they were.
The alleged murder is believed to have taken place between approximately 12.30 pm and 6.30 pm that day. Puneeth told the court that he did not know what happened at the premises during that period.
He also said he did not recognise the accused when they were presented during the video-conference proceedings.
Puneeth testified that he left the shed at around 6.30 pm to travel to Male Mahadeshwara Hills. A few other employees, including a security guard, were still present at the premises when he left.
His testimony therefore did not establish what had occurred at the shed during the period in which the prosecution alleges Renukaswamy was killed.
The court proceedings have not, by themselves, determined how the witness’s account will affect the overall case. The prosecution can continue questioning him, and the court will assess his evidence alongside the other material presented during the trial.
Witness says he learnt about the murder through news reports
Puneeth told the court that he came to know about the alleged murder after seeing news reports on June 10, two days after the incident.
He said police contacted him that day and asked him to visit the police station.
According to his testimony, he subsequently travelled to his hometown near Kanakapura and later went to Hassan. He also said he changed his mobile phone and purchased a basic handset.
The prosecution is expected to examine these details in the context of its investigation and the witness’s earlier statements, if any, that are legally relevant to the proceedings.
A witness turning hostile does not automatically end a prosecution case. The court can evaluate the testimony alongside other evidence, and the prosecution may challenge aspects of the witness’s account during cross-examination.
Prosecutor cross-examines hostile witness
Special Public Prosecutor Prasanna P Kumar told The Times of India that Puneeth was being cross-examined after turning hostile.
Cross-examination allows the prosecution to question a witness about inconsistencies, earlier statements and other aspects of the evidence. The court will determine what weight, if any, should be given to the witness’s testimony.
The hearing was adjourned until Thursday. The next proceedings are expected to continue the examination of evidence in the case.
The hostile testimony is one development in a wider trial involving multiple accused and a prosecution case built around events alleged to have occurred at the Pattanagere shed.
Darshan seeks physiotherapy for back pain
During the same hearing, Darshan told the court that he was suffering from back pain and requested physiotherapy.
His counsel informed the court that an application seeking the necessary treatment would be filed on Thursday.
Darshan and Pavithra Gowda participated in the proceedings through video conference from Parappana Agrahara Central Prison. The court is continuing to hear evidence in the case as the trial progresses.
The request for physiotherapy is separate from the evidence presented by Puneeth and does not affect the legal assessment of the witness’s testimony.
Background to the Renukaswamy murder case
Renukaswamy’s death in June 2024 led to a high-profile criminal investigation involving Darshan, Pavithra Gowda and several other accused.
Investigators alleged that Renukaswamy was abducted and assaulted before his death at the Pattanagere shed. The case attracted widespread attention because of Darshan’s prominence in the Kannada film industry and the number of people accused in connection with the alleged crime.
Darshan and Pavithra Gowda have been accused in the case, but the allegations remain subject to the ongoing judicial process. Their appearance in court and the testimony of individual witnesses form part of the trial through which the prosecution must establish its case.
The court will consider the evidence presented by both sides before reaching any conclusions on criminal liability.
What happens next in the trial?
The immediate next step is the continuation of the court proceedings, including the prosecution’s cross-examination of Puneeth. The questions put to him and any legally admissible material concerning his earlier statements may be relevant to how the court evaluates his testimony.
However, one witness turning hostile does not, on its own, determine the outcome of a criminal trial. The court must consider the full body of evidence, including other witness statements, forensic findings and any other material admitted during the proceedings.
The case is scheduled to resume on Thursday. Darshan’s request for physiotherapy is also expected to be taken up after his counsel files the application.
The latest development adds another important episode to the trial, but the final outcome will depend on the evidence and legal arguments considered by the court.