Beltangady: Kusumavathi Gowda, mother of Sowjanya, has lodged a police complaint against advocate N P Amruthesh, alleging that his public statements could undermine the ongoing investigation into the case and discourage potential witnesses from cooperating with the Special Investigation Team (SIT).

The complaint was filed at Dharmasthala police station on October 17 through advocate Vijay Vasu Poojary. It alleges that Amruthesh made controversial remarks at a press conference in Bengaluru on October 13, including claims that Sowjanya’s parents had made money from the case and statements questioning whether the investigation could reach a logical conclusion.

Kusumavathi has sought appropriate legal action, arguing that such remarks could affect the reputation of the victim’s family, influence public perception of the investigation and create apprehension among potential witnesses.

The allegations in the complaint have not been established in court, and any legal action would depend on the findings of the competent authorities.

Remarks on the SIT investigation under scrutiny

According to the complaint, Amruthesh allegedly said at the October 13 press conference that it would be impossible to reach a logical conclusion in the Sowjanya case, that results could not be expected within three months and that tracing evidence in a case dating back around 14 years would be difficult.

He is also alleged to have called for a fresh investigation into Santhosh Rao, who had earlier faced trial and been acquitted.

The complaint states that the Supreme Court, on September 21, 2026, directed a fresh investigation into the case and prescribed a three-month deadline. Following the order, the Karnataka government constituted an SIT on September 24, and the team began its investigation on October 1.

Kusumavathi’s complaint argues that publicly expressing doubts about the prospects of the investigation while the SIT is still examining the case could undermine confidence in its impartiality and credibility.

It further states that the remarks were reported by various media organisations and circulated widely on social media platforms, including YouTube, Facebook and WhatsApp, increasing their potential impact.

The complainant has urged the police to examine whether the statements amount to any offence under applicable law.

Complaint raises concerns over family’s credibility

The complaint also details the role of Sowjanya’s family members in the case and argues that allegations suggesting they had financially benefited from it could damage their credibility.

According to the complaint, Sowjanya’s paternal uncle and aunt were the last people to see her alive. It further states that the First Information Report (FIR) was amended following a complaint lodged by her uncle, Jagadish Gowda.

Sowjanya’s father had testified as the first prosecution witness, identified as PW-1, according to the complaint.

Against this background, the complainant contends that portraying the family as pursuing the case for financial gain could affect how potential witnesses view them and discourage others from coming forward with information.

The complaint also refers to observations attributed to the Supreme Court regarding individuals who allegedly possessed important information but had not been treated as witnesses by the three investigating agencies that previously handled the case.

It states that eight potential witnesses were identified after the court ordered witness protection.

Kusumavathi has expressed concern that public statements undermining the family’s credibility could discourage these individuals from assisting the SIT at a crucial stage of the investigation.

Supreme Court directions cited in complaint

The complaint refers to the Supreme Court’s September 21 order directing a fresh investigation into the case. It argues that the ongoing probe must be allowed to proceed in accordance with the court’s directions.

According to the complaint, Santhosh Rao had already faced trial and been acquitted, and it raises concerns about whether calls for a fresh investigation into him are consistent with the Supreme Court’s directions.

The complainant alleges that Amruthesh’s reported remarks calling for a fresh investigation into Rao should be examined in the context of the court’s order.

The complaint also argues that declaring the investigation unlikely to succeed before the SIT has completed its work could weaken public confidence in the process.

These are claims made by the complainant. The legal implications of the remarks and their consistency with the Supreme Court’s directions would require examination by the appropriate authorities.

Murder of Ravi Poojary cited

The complaint also refers to the murder of Ravi Poojary, described as an important witness in the case.

It states that the Sessions Court referred to his murder in an order dated February 7, 2017. The complaint further alleges that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had not been aware of the development at the time.

Kusumavathi’s complaint also cites observations attributed to the Supreme Court criticising the functioning of the investigating agencies that had previously handled the case.

According to the complaint, the court observed that the possibility of the actual perpetrators manipulating the investigation to suit their interests could not be ruled out.

These matters have been cited to emphasise the need for a fair and independent investigation, with adequate safeguards for individuals who may possess relevant information.

The complainant argues that, given the history of the case and the concerns surrounding potential witnesses, public statements that could affect their willingness to cooperate should be examined carefully.

Earlier criminal case and bail conditions mentioned

The complaint also refers to Criminal Case No. 218/2013, registered at Bengaluru’s High Grounds police station, and the associated C.C. No. 20735/2013.

According to the complaint, Amruthesh was named as the seventh accused in that case, which involved charges under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

It further states that a condition prohibiting involvement in criminal activity was imposed while granting him anticipatory bail.

Kusumavathi has requested that, if the SIT finds that the present incident involves a criminal offence, the relevant details be brought to the attention of the appropriate prosecuting agency.

The complaint’s reference to the earlier case is part of the allegations submitted by the complainant and does not, by itself, establish any offence in connection with the present matter.

Section 351 of BNS invoked; witness protection sought

The complaint asks the authorities to examine whether the alleged conduct attracts provisions relating to criminal intimidation under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

It also requests that the substance of the complaint be recorded under Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and that an order from the competent magistrate be obtained for further investigation, as sought by the complainant.

A key demand is a risk assessment covering Kusumavathi, her family members and the eight potential witnesses identified in an additional affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court.

The complaint seeks preparation of a threat-analysis report under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, and its submission to the competent authority in Dakshina Kannada district for appropriate protective measures.

It also requests that relevant evidence and information be shared with the prosecuting agency handling C.C. No. 20735/2013, arising from Crime No. 218/2013 registered at Bengaluru’s High Grounds police station.

Complaint seeks action and safeguards for witnesses

Through the complaint, Kusumavathi has asked the police and investigating authorities to examine the allegations against Amruthesh and take appropriate legal steps if an offence is established.

The complaint places particular emphasis on protecting potential witnesses and ensuring that the SIT’s investigation proceeds without interference or pressure.

With the fresh investigation under way, the complainant has argued that the credibility of the process and the safety of people who may provide information must be safeguarded.

The allegations against Amruthesh remain allegations contained in the complaint. Any determination of criminal liability will depend on the evidence and the findings of the competent authorities.