Bengaluru: In a detailed verdict running into 919 pages, the high court has said, “The percentage of disproportionate assets (DA) is 8.12%. It is relatively small. In the instant case, the DA is less than 10% and it is within permissible limit. Therefore, accused are entitled for acquittal. When the principal accused, Jayalalithaa has been acquitted, the other accused who have played a lesser role are also entitled for acquittal.”

The high court in its finding has recorded that the total income of Jayalalithaa, her firms and companies is Rs 34,76,65,654 and that she possessed DA amount of Rs 2,82,36,812 while declining to accept the case of the prosecution that she had DA of Rs 66.65 crore or the DA amount of Rs 53.6 crore as per the special court.

The high court while arriving at the percentage of DA amount, has removed the exaggerated value of cost of construction and marriage expenses, and has even said that the trial court has erred in not considering the loans as income.

“The prosecution has mixed up assets of accused, firms and companies and also added the cost of construction Rs 27,79,88,945 and marriage expenses at Rs 6,45,04,222 and valued the assets at Rs 66,44,73,573.”

The court has also said that the value of apparels and slippers and so on are of insignificant value. Insofar of Oscar winner composer A.R. Rahman, and Mandoiln Srinivas connection in the case, the court has said that they performed ‘free of cost’ at the marriage reception of V.N. Sudhakaran, foster son of Jayalalithaa.

The court has also set aside the order of the trial court relating to confiscation of the properties both movable and immovable.

In respect of income tax, and loans, the court said that the trial court has ignored the income tax proceedings as minimum evidentiary value. “The trial court has not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective. Though the trial court in its judgment mentioned that the accused availed loan by the Indian Bank, it has not considered the same as income. Therefore, the trial court has erred in not considering the loans as income.” If the witness gives different statements at different stages, it is unsafe to place reliance on them, high court said.