No Case Of Sexual Assault Made Out At This Stage, Delay In Lodging Complaint: Prajwal Revanna To Karnataka HC For Bail, Verdict Reserved

Suspended Janta Dal (S) leader Prajwal Revanna while arguing his bail plea in a sexual assault case told the Karnataka High Court on Thursday that at this stage no allegations were made out against him, adding that there was a delay in lodging of complaints in the matter. 

After hearing the arguments from the parties, a single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna went on to reserve 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. 

At the outset the high court said to the advocates appearing for the parties , not to mention the names of the victims adding that if they want the court to read something they can point out the same.  

Appearing for Revanna Senior Advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi began with the chronology of events in the case. He said, "The prosecutrix had grievance earlier, she had gone to the police complaining of removing her illegally from her house. Milords may note this, she is related to my mother, she was employed by my father, for four years she is working with us. There is no allegation at this stage against me. Allegations is against my father of sexual harassment.

Arguing on the absence of any explanation given by the prosecutrix for four year delay in lodging complaint, Navadgi said, "There is no explanation why she took four long years to lodge the complaint, she only says some videos were circulated, 'my husband asked are you in it, I took the courage and went to television channel, one day before polling is to take place and then lodged FIR'. Sec 376 (IPC)  is invoked based on her (complainants) further statement. She narrates the same thing but makes changes to her version". 

The senior counsel further argued that the woman did not mention whether the alleged act was recorded on video or not, adding that there was "nothing on record to show there was an act". He further submitted that the FSL reports that were received did not match with the purported video. 

"Whether this lady and accused can be traced to the video is also negative.Why when she went to the televisions channel, she did not mention about Sec 376? and recording in her first statement also, the mention about Sec 376 (IPC)  is conspicuously absent. In the further statement (of complainant) she says I did not disclose all details of harassment," Navadgi argued. 

He further said that there was "some inconsistency" in the statement of the victim's daughter as well. 

"Five features of these statements are, right from incident (2020) upto 2024, May 1, no allegation of Sec 376. One explanation is that they were powerful people, that may not be believable. If the grievance was ' I have to raise my voice', she went before the televisions channel...first thing she could have said about is Sec 376 (IPC) which is not said. She says my husband kept on asking me whether the person in the video was me. Was it a case that she was found in the video and it was not with her consent? No explanation for several years, inconsistency in explanation of the events and there is shared animosity between them," Navadgi added. 

Navadgi further argued that no video was found from Revanna's phone. He said that Revanna's driver (Karthik) was also summoned whose phone was seized wherein the investigating agencies found "some photos and videos" wherein the explanation given was that the phone belonged to me Revanna. 

Regarding the FSL report, Navadgi said that the same was negative. He said that the phone in question was seized on April 30, sent to FSL on May 30 and so a possibility of manipulation existed. 

On the allegations under Section 66E of Information Technology (IT) Act, Navadgi said that the same was not against Revanna as the phone was seized from Karthik.

With respect to the aspect of delay in lodging complaint Navadgi referred to a Supreme Court judgments and said, "Normal rule of delay being fatal may not be applicable in every case, notwithstanding the consequence which would befall on the accused, there should be some satisfactory explanation is required. My submission is forget about satisfactory explanation, there is no explanation at all". 

Navadgi further pointed to two "factors" for the court's consideration–that Revanna had been in custody since his arrest and that the chargesheet had been filed now.

"We are grounded in the society we are a family and not likely to flee away from justice. Any condition imposed will be abided by scrupulously. The backlash me and the entire family has received should be considered," the senior counsel said. 

He further submitted that on April 16 there was a "Lok Sabha rally and the victim has accompanied me in the rally. Relies on Instagram account of petitioner

Navadgi further referred to the third complaint regarding "circulation of video" where Revanna has been made an accused; the high court has granted stay in another petition filed by Preetam Gowda.

Regarding this petition the high court orally said, "Why is this not listed? This man by circulation has put every woman into ignominy...". 

Meanwhile appearing for the State, Special Public Prosecutor Professor Ravivarma Kumar argued that the allegations against Revanna starts after the allegations against Revanna's father were made. 

On the question of delay in lodging of complaint raised by Revanna, Kumar submitted that the applicant was "constantly threatening the victim" adding that the details of the threat are given in the "further statement of the victim".

"She has narrated about what happened to her daughter at hands of petitioner. This aspect has been proved by FSL report," Kumar argued. 

At this stage the high court orally asked, "But FSL report is negative?". To this Kumar said that with regard to the daughter, the FSL report is "proved". 

Kumar said that the delay had been "fully explained" which was on account of threat of the petitioner and that there was "no hide and seek". 

"So far as identity of victim is concerned, it was in the darkness (that) the photo was shot, but the genuinity of the video is proved. For enlargement on bail court has to consider, the efforts taken by petitioner to silence the victim, this man had himself ran away from the country. Third and important...is that petitioner has not surrendered his phone which contains all information. Out of shame the lady has covered her face with the hand, that is why her identity could not be ascertained. He is not entitled for bail. Trial court has exhaustively considered all the arguments and accordingly answered while rejecting his bail application," Kumar said. 

After hearing the arguments the court went on to reserve its verdict. 

Case Title: Prajwal Revanna v. State of Karnataka