On April 17, 2026, Kusumavati Gowda, mother of Soujanya, filed a formal complaint at Dharmasthala Police Station accusing lawyer N.P. Amrutesh of attempting to influence the Special Investigation Team probe.
The grievance, submitted through advocate Vijay Vasudev Pujari, cites a press conference held in Bangalore on March 13, 2026. At that event, Amrutesh alleged that Soujanya’s parents had profited from the case and claimed the SIT would not succeed, suggesting that a logical conclusion was impossible within three months and that locating fourteen‑year‑old evidence would be difficult.
Supreme Court had directed a fresh inquiry on June 21, 2026, imposing a three‑month deadline, and the state government constituted the SIT on June 24, 2026. The investigation officially began on June 1, 2026.
According to the complaint, Amrutesh also urged the re‑examination of Santosh Rao, a stance that contradicts the Supreme Court order that barred any further questioning of Rao after he had already been cleared.
Media outlets amplified Amrutesh’s statements across YouTube, Facebook and WhatsApp, prompting concerns that such remarks could tarnish the reputation of Soujanya’s family and intimidate potential witnesses.
The filing highlights that eight prospective witnesses have been identified and placed under protection following a court directive. It warns that portraying the investigation as destined to fail may undermine its impartiality and deter cooperation.
Additional context notes that Soujanya was last seen by her maternal grandparents, Jagadish Gowda and his wife, whose statements led to an amendment in the original FIR. Her father served as the first witness. The complaint also references the 2017 session court order that recorded the death of key witness Ravi Pujari and remarks that the Bar Council of India had not taken cognizance of the matter, a point echoed in the Supreme Court’s criticism of investigative agencies.
Image: varthabharati.in
📰 Source: Vartha Bharati DK