Prajwal Revanna Video 'Not Morphed', Voice Sample 'Similar' As Per FSL: Survivor To Karnataka HC Against Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case

Opposing a fresh anticipatory bail plea moved by suspended Janta Dal (S) leader Prajwal Revanna–an accused in a rape and sexual assault case, the complainant woman told the Karnataka High Court on Thursday that the FSL report on the video– in which Revanna has been allegedly "caught"– states that it is not morphed but genuine.

Urging the court to deny bail, the woman's counsel submitted before a single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprassana that Revanna's "speech" was fully recorded and was found to be "similar" to the voice samples taken for comparison. 

After hearing the parties, the high court reserved its verdict and said it shall pronounce the orders in all the anticipatory bail pleas together.

This fresh anticipatory bail plea had been filed in a case filed by Special Investigation Team for various offences including IPC Sections 376(2)n (commits rape repeatedly on the same woman, 376(2)k (rape while being in a position of control or dominance over a woman), 506 (criminal intimidation), 354(a) (Sexual harassment), 354b (Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe), 354c (Voyeurism) and Section 66E (Punishment for violation of privacy) of Information Technology Act.

Last week, the high court had reserved its verdict in Revanna's bail plea (in the first case) as well as two anticipatory bail pleas (with respect to two subsequent complaints) pertaining to allegations of rape and sexual assault. 

During the hearing, senior advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi appearing for Revanna said that there was only one feature in this case, wherein "after the alleged incident" and "prior to lockdown" the complainant continued to stay where the alleged incident took place. This, he submitted, were "unusual circumstances", adding that rest of the arguments are same as made in the other bail pleas moved by Revanna. 

Meanwhile senior advocate Professor Ravivarma Kumar appearing for the prosecution pointed to the "nature and gravity" of the offence alleged and said, "The victim/complainant had fully explained the delay. She was a domestic servant working in the estate, she was taken to Bangalore and same thing happened there also. It was serial rape committed". 

At this stage, the high court orally said that whatever the complainant has narrated was "too gory". 

Kumar thereafter said that, "The lady was not only under his control, and he was dominating; she was double the age of the perpetrator. The lady held his feet...I don't want to say more. This was the same lady who was abducted before election.The suit asking for restraining filed by petitioner was filed one year before, he knew everything before it and he filed suit and silenced media houses. After securing the interim order no criminal cases is registered alleging videos were morphed".

Kumar thereafter said that not even a criminal complaint had been filed against the victim, adding that Revanna is a "flight risk". To this the court orally noted that Revanna was out of the country for "34 days". 

Pointing to "heinousness and severity" of the crime, Kumar argued, "Character, behaviors and means is to be taken into consideration, politically powerful family and financially rich. According to me all 8 conditions while refusing to consider the bail application is present in the case at hand. Brutality is writ large in this case". 

He further submitted that in fact the "sole testimony" of the victim was sufficient to convict Revanna. Kumar thereafter referred to FSL report received in the matter and said, "For the first time in this case, the petitioner has been caught on video. Kindly go through the cry of the lady milord, which is extracted in the FSL report through voice sampling. It is said that on analysis videos are not morphed or edited thus they are genuine.Speech of the accused is fully recorded and is found to be similar to voice samples taken". 

Kumar thereafter said that the FSL report refers to the text of the video. He submitted that the defence taken by the accused in the lower court was that it was a "consensual act" however "her shout/cry everything is recorded".  He submitted that the "entire transcript of all the details, how he (Revanna) forced the victim to subjugation" had been brought out.

At this stage the high court asked Navadgi as to why did Revanna institute a suit for restraining the media. To this Navadgi responded that "certain video was being circulated". Kumar claimed that the alleged incident had not been denied by Revanna. Navadgi meanwhile countered that the driver's phone had been seized. 

The high court however again queried as to why was the suit filed. To this Navadgi responded, "He (Driver) sent me photos. The face of the petitioner is not seen at all". 

The court however orally said that there was a "voice match" in the video. Navadgi however said that prior to the lockdown victim said that the alleged incident happened but she continued to stay.

To this court orally remarked, "Did she have any choice?". 

After some hearing the high court reserved its verdict. 

Case title: Prajwal Revanna AND State of Karnataka 

Case No: CRL. P 9581/2024