The Karnataka High Court dismissed former JD(S) MP Prajwal Revanna’s plea to transfer two ongoing rape cases to a different court. The Court held that previous adverse remarks by the trial judge do not indicate bias and directed the cases to proceed on their merits.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday rejected two petitions filed by former Janata Dal (Secular) Member of Parliament Prajwal Revanna seeking to transfer the trial in two ongoing rape cases against him from the 81st Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru to another sessions court.
Justice MI Arun dismissed the arguments presented by Revanna’s counsel that the current trial judge could be biased against him, citing the fact that the same judge had earlier convicted the legislator in a separate rape case.
The petition had argued that the trial court judge had made adverse remarks against both Revanna and his lawyer in the previous judgment, raising concerns about whether a fair trial could be expected in the remaining cases.
However, the High Court was not persuaded that such remarks would indicate bias.
The Court said,
“The observations in the judgment may sound a bit harsh but that cannot be construed as a bias on the part of the presiding officer. Admittedly, the petitioner has tried to drag the case and resort to delay tactics which has been frowned upon by the trial court. If that can be a ground for transfer of a criminal case, there would be petitions filed for transfer in almost all criminal cases where the accused feels that he may get convicted. This practice cannot be permitted,”
The Court also dismissed Revanna’s claim that the trial judge had not properly evaluated the evidence in the earlier rape case.
Justice Arun ruled,
“Insofar as it relates to erroneous appreciation of evidence, it is always open for the petitioner to challenge the judgment delivered by the trial court. That also cannot be a ground for seeking transfer,”
The High Court further clarified that a transfer cannot be ordered simply because a previous ruling was not in the petitioner’s favor.
The Court added,
“In the course of arguments, the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Bombay High Court.. (the observations in this case apply on a case to case basis and is not a ground for) the petitioner to seek transfer from one court to another merely because the court is not siding with him, as in the instant case. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not see any merits in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed,”
At the same time, the High Court directed the trial court to focus solely on the merits of the pending cases.
The Court said,
“However, the trial court is directed not to be prejudiced by the conduct of the petitioner in filing petitions for transfer of the case from the trial court and decide purely on merits of the case,”
Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave appeared on behalf of Revanna in the matter.
Revanna had filed the transfer petitions in connection with two cases that include charges under Sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape), 354A (outraging modesty), 354B (assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe), 354C (voyeurism), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 201 (hiding evidence) of the Indian Penal Code.
Additionally, these cases cited charges under Section 66E (transmitting images in violation of another’s privacy) of the Information Technology Act.
These two cases are part of four separate cases filed against Revanna last year, following the circulation of over 2,900 videos online, including on social media, showing the sexual assault of multiple women.
In August this year, Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat had convicted Revanna in one of the rape cases, which involved allegations that he repeatedly raped a maid employed by his family.
For this, Revanna was sentenced to life imprisonment and is currently lodged in Central Jail, Bengaluru.
In his transfer plea, Revanna raised concerns that the remaining two cases were also assigned to the same judge who had convicted him in August, namely the 81st Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, who handles criminal cases involving legislators.
Revanna claimed that the trial court had made adverse and unnecessary remarks against both him and his lawyer, raising fears over a fair trial.
The plea was filed through advocate Girish Kumar BM.
Case Title:
Prajwal Revanna v. State of Karnataka
Click Here To Read More Reports on Prajwal Revanna
