'Calculated Move' By Former CM Yediyurappa To File Plea For Quashing POCSO Case After Complainant's Death: State To Karnataka HC

Mustafa Plumber

15 Jan 2025 8:50 AM

  • Calculated Move By Former CM Yediyurappa To File Plea For Quashing POCSO Case After Complainants Death: State To Karnataka HC

    The Karnataka government on Wednesday told the High Court that former CM BS Yediyurappa's plea for quashing a POCSO case against him was 'calculatedly' filed after the death of the complainant.The State also pointed that there was a mismatch between the date on Yediyurappa's quashing petition and the date on his sworn affidavit, calling it a "gross abuse of process of law".It further...

    The Karnataka government on Wednesday told the High Court that former CM BS Yediyurappa's plea for quashing a POCSO case against him was 'calculatedly' filed after the death of the complainant.

    The State also pointed that there was a mismatch between the date on Yediyurappa's quashing petition and the date on his sworn affidavit, calling it a "gross abuse of process of law".

    It further submitted that for an offence of sexual assault under POCSO Act there is a statutory presumption in favour of guilt of the accused, and hence his plea for quashing will not lie. It also said that the FSL report indicated the genuineness of the video recording of the conversation between the complainant and the former CM where he allegedly gave her cash when he was confronted about the alleged incident. 

    Justice M Nagaprassana was hearing the former CM's plea to quash a case registered against him under the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) Act. As per the complaint filed by the mother (complainant) of a 17-year-old girl, Yediyurappa sexually assaulted her daughter during a meeting in February last year, at his residence in Bengaluru. On March 14, 2024 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.

    During the hearing Special Public Prosecutor Senior advocate Professor Ravivarma Kumar appearing for the State said, "This is gross abuse of process of law. Petitioner was keeping silent without proceeding against the complainant till her death. In all probability the petition was ready but they had their own apprehension. Petition is filed after the complainant's death. Petition is dated June 12, and it is sworn to affidavit one month earlier. This is not a petition verified by the said affidavit. The petition should be thrown away as it is not verified. It is calculated move by petitioner to move after death of complainant". 

    He further said that the allegation against Yediyurappa is under Sections 7 (Sexual assault) and 8 (Punishment for Sexual assault) of POCSO Act.

    Kumar while referring to Section 29 said, "Unlike the normal foundation for criminal jurisprudence He is presumed to be guilty". Section 29 POCSO states that where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved.

    Kumar thereafter referred to Section 30 which deals with Presumption of culpable mental state. "It is at the trial that he can establish, nobody else has seen it, there is no eyewitness. There is statutory presumption in favour of guilt of the accused," he said. 

    "Parliament has declared that it is a heinous crime. Therefore, in light of presumption a sec 482 petition does not lie in POCSO cases. From the evidence placed on record the prosecution has made out a strong case unless he rebuts the presumption," Kumar said. 

    Kumar thereafter referred to the victim's statement and said, "Yes gory details are given by the victim. The child came out crying after she protested about was happening".

    The court then orally asked why did the State not register the crime after the incident.

    To this Kumar said, "When she was 6 and half years old the husbands' relatives rape this victim at home and it is first POCSO case, for getting justice in that case she approached the accused. As the mother and child stepped out the child tells the mother on the footsteps of the coffee shop, adjoining to the accused house narrates about the incident. Immediately the mother rushed back and confronted the accused. Immediately after the girl protested in the room the accused removed cash and thrusted in her hand and after they come out he pays some more money to the mother. Fact of the matter is the whole conversation between the mother and Yeddyurappa was recorded by the child". 

    At this stage the high court asked,  "The conversation (was) recorded after they entered the second time?"

    Kumar explained that the conversation was recorded when the girl and her mother "reentered the room". "The recording is on the mobile phone purchased for the girl by her own brother. She has uploaded the recording to her google drive," he added.

    To this the court said, "In that recording there is reference to what petitioner did to the victim inside the room. So according to you if that incident did not happen why would the complainant (mother of victim) confront him (petitioner)?".

    When Kumar responded in the affirmative, the court orally asked, "This is the transcript of recorded conversation on the mobile?". 

    "Yes. He (Yediyurappa) appreciated the complainant and even brought up D K Shivakumar in the conversation with the mother of the victim. I thought they both were at loggerheads. This fact about recorded conversation has been proved to the hilt. The voice sample of accused was collected and sent for verification, and it matches with the voice sample of the accused, that fact is born out in the FSL report," Kumar said. 

    The court thereafter said, "FSL report says voice matches, its similar. Of the victim and petitioner is confirmed". To this Kumar said that all other technical details are available.

    On the issue whether the video was morphed or not Kumar said,"Kindly see the FSL report. The opinion says it is certified to be genuine and not morphed. Mobile phone was sent to National Forensic Science University in Gujarat". 

    The court thereafter asked, "Only issue is whether statement under sec 161 be not considered while considering 482 petition?". 

    Kumar however said that the petitioner was interrogated and he has not instituted any proceedings against the complainant. "He admits that he has paid Rs 9,000. This Hiremath is the advocate to whom she reports the incident even before confronting the accused.The girl narrates about the details about the room where she was taken about the curtains, sofa etc. He has admitted to that," Kumar added. 

    Kumar further contended that the custodial interrogation of the accused would have been much more fruitful. He said that the sole testimony of the victim can be the basis of conviction. 

    The court thereafter asked, "So there should at least be a trial is your submission?" to which Kumar said, "Yes". 

    The court further said that it shall finish the "hearing before February 25".

    Kumar further said, "The interim order was made after hearing the Advocate General. For 50 years i am lawyer it is unheard of, it appears the judge asked whether petitioner is a tom dick and harry, sir this jurisprudence is unknown to law. I am extremely saddened by such an observation. With great respect such words should not come from the mouth of a Constitutional court. That gives a wrong signal".

    To this the court orally said, "The previous bench. For me however, high they are you are not above law. Sometime it happen. Lordship (Krishna Dixit. J) is most erudite judge of this court". 

    After Kumar concluded his arguments the court listed the matter on January 17 for hearing submissions by petitioner's counsel senior advocate CV Nagesh. The court also continued the operation of the interim order, restraining the police from arresting Yediyurappa.

    Case title: BS Yediyurappa v/s The Criminal Investigating Department CID 

    Case No: WP 15522/2024

    (Compiled by Malavika Prasad)

    Next Story