Nithyananda’s counsel tells High Court that it was case of consesual sex, not rape

Team Udayavani, Mar 17, 2018, 12:36 PM IST

Bengaluru: Protecting the so called godman Nithyananda in the rape case documented against him by a NRI lady, his counsel C V Nagesh on Friday educated the High Court of Karnataka that the indictment records demonstrate that it was an instance of consensual sex and not rape as claimed.

The complainant, a former disciple of Nithyananda, has blamed him for sexually ambushing her during her stay at his ashram close Bidadi on the outskirts of Bengaluru.

Justice R B Budihal was hearing an appeal record by Nithyananda testing the Ramanagaram court’s request to outline charges against him in the assault case while dismissing his plea to release him from the case.

Nagesh presented that the complainant has a background marked by having numerous partners and furthermore experiences a sexually transmitted diseases. He said that the complainant was a well educated, married lady and the US subject. She had lived in Nithyananda’s ashram for a couple of years. She had consensual sex with Nithyananda for increasing spiritual delight, which was guaranteed by him. Nagesh likewise conveyed to the notice of the court that vital proof gathered by the examination officer had not been produced before the trial court.

 48 witnesses have given statements which were not investigated by the court while passing the judgment. The trial court just investigated those confirmations that the indictment depended upon. The sign of examination is ‘elementary fairness,’ which has been denied, he specified.

Aside from Nithyananda, five others were also charged in the case. They are Gopala Sheelam Reddy alias Nithya Bhakthananda; Shiva Vallabhaneni alias Nithya Sachidananda; Danasekaran alias Nithya Sadananda; Ragini alias Maa Nithya Sachidananda; and Jamuna Rani alias Maa Nithyananda. They too have moved the high court scrutinizing the trial court’s request dismissing their applications looking for release from the case.

The prosecution stated that Nithyananda never coordinated for a medical examination as required by the examination officer. Also, he moved the court when there was solid proof against him.