Cannot Quash POCSO Case Against BS Yediyurappa Based On Witnesses Statement Denying Alleged Incident: Karnataka High Court

Justice M Nagaprasanna said “Quashing of proceedings based on statements recorded under S.161 and S.164 Crpc is not available, is my prima facie view. Show me one judgment where relying on the statements made under Section 161 and Section 164, proceedings can be quashed.”

Further, he said “This is a case under POCSO. Evidence of witnesses that the victim was not taken inside the room should that not be cross examined? She (victim) should also be cross examined. Either of the statements becomes gospel truth if not put into trial. Taking the statement (of witnesses) as correct and quashing the entire proceedings. Should it not be put to trial. How can you say the victim's statements is false?"

Suggesting to the counsel to satisfy the court about whether statements can form a part of quashment proceedings, the bench said “Instead of reading statements address that issue. At the initial stage itself recording that these witnesses do not inspire the confidence of this court so I quash is a bit difficult.”

It added “The Section 161 statements are disbelieved because they are taken under what circumstance you don't know. However, the Section 164 statement is on a higher pedestal because it is before a magistrate.”

Senior Advocate C V Nagesh appearing for the petitioner began his submission by referring to Section 2(h) of CrPC and the object of investigation is to collect evidence. It is not in support of allegations of the complainant. But the version of the complainant is put to test in the investigation.

He said “Statements of witnesses present that day at the residence of the petitioner where the alleged incident happened would say that nothing happened on that day.”

To the query of the court about the evidentiary value of the statement of the victim being on a higher pedestal as recorded under Section 164 CrPC. Nagesh said “My submission is that both statements are on par with each other and combined reading is necessary.”

Nagesh assured the court that he would try to satisfy the court on the query raised.

Special Public Prosecutor Professor Ravivarma Kumar read details narrated in the statement of the victim about the incident. He contended that “Yediyurappa has admitted the entire incident. What the hell are we doing here...Accused has admitted everything.” He even claimed that sole testimony of the victim is sufficient even to convict; it is not necessary for it to be corroborated.”

The court posted the matter for further hearing on Thursday at 5 pm.

Background:

As per the complaint filed by the mother of a 17-year-old girl, the accused sexually assaulted her daughter during a meeting in February, at Yediyurappa's residence in Bengaluru.

On March 14, the Sadashivanagar police had registered the case. Later, it was transferred to CID for further investigation which re-registered the FIR and filed a chargesheet.

Case Title: B S Yediyurappa AND The Criminal Investigating Department