 |
| Jayalalithaa acquittal: Trial court failed to appreciate evidence in proper perspective, Karnataka HC says |
READ ALSO: Staying together doesn't mean Jayalalithaa conspired with other accused: Karnataka HC
"The trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective. The immovable properties were acquired by borrowing huge loan from nationalised banks. It is difficult to infer that the properties were acquired by means of ill-gotten money. Taking into consideration the overall circumstances and materials placed on record, in my view, the judgment and finding recorded by the trial court suffer from infirmity and it is not sustainable in law," Justice C R Kumaraswamy said in his 919-page judgment, overturning 1,136-page verdict of special judge John Michael Cunha.
"Litigation made by persons who advance political gain and to settle the scores under the guise to fight a legal battle should not be entertained," observed Justice Kumaraswamy, accepting the arguments of Jayalalithaa's legal team hook, line and sinker.
"Liberty of the accused cannot be taken away except in accordance with established procedure of law, under the Constitution, criminal procedure and other cognate statutes," he said.
Rejecting special public prosecutor B V Acharya's charge that the accused had accumulated more than 300 immovable properties using the tainted money, the judge said the prosecution had been relying only on sale deeds of various properties without bothering to submit materials to prove benami transactions.
"The prosecution mainly relies on evidence of the sub-registrar and brokers and also the sale deeds. Except marking the sale deeds, there is no other evidence. The burden lies on the prosecution to establish benami transactions. The prosecution has not adduced any evidence with regard to allegation of benami transactions," he said.
Even as a minor, Jayalalithaa had been filing her income tax returns, Justice Kumaraswamy said. "She was a cine actress. She has filed returns since she was a minor. The property bearing No 36, Poes Garden was acquired by her mother and also Natya Kala Nikethan. She acquired the adjacent property for Rs 8 lakh. Except this, she has not purchased any property."
The combined value of properties acquired by her friend Sasikalaa Natarajan, Elavarasi and Sudhagaran amounted to just Rs 6.24 crore, he said, adding that the 800-acre Kodanadu estate was bought for Rs 3.5 crore.
"The prosecution itself has shown the property of the four accused, firms and companies to the extent of Rs 9.34 crore, whereas the loan borrowed by them is to the extent of Rs 24.17 crore," he said, concluding that loans should be treated as lawful income.
As for the additional constructions that had taken place at Jaalaltihaa's Poes Garden residence, Justice Kumaraswamy rejected the vigilance estimation of Rs 27 crore, and held that he would accept only Rs 5 crore as construction expenses, as claimed by the accused.
He, consequently, knocked off about Rs 22 crore from the disproportionate assets listed against Jayalalithaa's name. He also accepted her claim that Rs 14 crore had been mobilized through an annual subscription scheme for party organ Namadhu MGR, and deducted that sum as well.
The judge completely rejected the vigilance valuation of apparels and footwear seized from Jayalalithaa's residence.
"There were four members residing, along with many servants. The prosecution has not segregated the footwear. When they were acquired was also not forthcoming from the evidence. I decline to take the value of the footwear. In so far as the apparels of Jayalalithaa, Sasikalaa and Elavarasi are concerned, the prosecution has examined a witness who deposed that there were 914 silk sarees, chudidhars and nighties -- altogether 6,195 sets. Age of the sarees is not mentioned and there are three women residing the house."
"The prosecution has not segregated wearing apparels of the accused. Besides Jayalalithaa was a cine actress from the age of 18 years. Most of the apparels used for the purpose of film shooting were handed over to her by film producers. In that view of the matter, I decline to take the value of the apparels," he said.
Sign up here with your email
ConversionConversion EmoticonEmoticon