Bengaluru: Karnataka high court Thursday suggested various alternatives to actor Darshan Thoogudeepa, accused no. 2 in the Renukaswamy murder case, after hearing a petition filed by his wife Vijayalakshmi, who sought his physical production before the trial court on all dates during the trial, instead of through video conferencing.The trial court on Aug 17 rejected the same request made by Darshan and three other accused in the case.Justice V Srishananda noted that allowing Darshan to be present physically in court on all dates of the murder trial may pose security and traffic issues.The judge pointed out that considering the fact that there are only a handful of key witnesses, Darshan can be permitted to be present physically in court when they are examined or the trial itself can be shifted to the special court at Parappana Agrahara.The judge was of the view that the trial of the material witnesses can be accomplished in a couple of days.Justice Srishananda also suggested that the counsel representing Darshan could be allowed a 15-minute exclusive conversation with his client prior to commencement of the proceedings. A mobile phone of one of the registrars of the civil court with video calling and headphone facility can also be provided to the counsel for an exclusive conversation with his client, the judge added. The matter has now been adjourned to Sept 16.The trial court, while rejecting the plea filed on behalf of the accused, had directed the jail authorities to provide the accused with complete and unrestricted opportunity to consult and communicate confidentially with their advocates, without imposing any unreasonable restriction on the duration or number of such consultations, so as to enable them to give full and effective instructions to their advocates throughout the trial.The registry of the city civilcourt was also directed to depute technical personnel to ensure that the videoconferencing facility remains functional and effective throughout the trial. The registrar and the technical team were also directed to make arrangements for advocate consultation for the undertrial prisoner before, during and after recording the evidence.Challenging the trial court’s decision, Vijayalakshmi contended that due to recurring technical difficulties and connectivity issues in the video conferencing system, the accused were unable to follow the proceedings before the trial court effectively.
