A Bengaluru court refused to discharge suspended JD(S) leader Prajwal Revanna in a rape case involving his maid. Charges were framed after forensic-confirmed videos and SIT evidence were found credible.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KARNATAKA: A Bengaluru court has refused to close the rape case filed against suspended Janata Dal (Secular) leader Prajwal Revanna, who is accused of raping his maid multiple times and recording videos of the act.
On April 3, Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat passed the order and also officially framed criminal charges against Revanna under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):
- Section 376(2)(k) – Rape by a person in a position of control or dominance
- Section 376(2)(n) – Repeated rape
- Section 354A – Outraging modesty of a woman
- Section 354B – Assault with intent to disrobe
- Section 354C – Voyeurism
- Section 506 – Criminal intimidation
- Section 201 – Destruction of evidence
In addition to IPC charges, he was also booked under Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2008, which deals with privacy violation by sharing private images without permission.
ALSO READ: Obscene Video Scandal: Prajwal Revanna Allowed to View Alleged Sex Videos in Closed Court
The next court hearing in this case is set for April 9.
The case started when a maid who worked at the Revanna family’s farmhouse accused Prajwal Revanna of raping her multiple times, starting around 2021, during the COVID-19 lockdown.
She said she remained silent at the time because Revanna recorded the assaults and threatened to leak the videos if she spoke out.
Later, after reports emerged that such videos of sexual assault were leaked online, she decided to come forward and file a police complaint.
It is said that over 2,900 such videos involving many women were circulated on social media and other online platforms.
Based on her complaint, four separate cases were registered against Prajwal Revanna.
After public outrage, Revanna allegedly fled to Germany soon after the 2024 Lok Sabha elections in Karnataka.
ALSO READ: Denied Bail To Ex MP Prajwal Revanna In Rape Cases: Supreme Court
He was arrested upon returning to India on May 31, 2024, and has been in jail since then.
The Special Investigation Team (SIT), which investigated the case, filed its chargesheet in August 2024.
In response, Revanna filed an application to discharge him from the case, claiming there was not enough proof against him.
His lawyers argued that the serious charges were false and only meant to damage his public image.
He also questioned why the maid waited to report the rape if the first incident happened in 2021.
But the SIT told the court that it had collected four volumes of evidence and that the videos were real, confirmed by forensic analysis.
On April 3, the court rejected Revanna’s plea to be discharged from the case. The judge said there was enough evidence to frame charges and continue with the trial.
The judge also noted that questions like delay in reporting the case or the absence of the original recording device could be explained later during the trial.
These issues, the court said,
“Are aspects that can be examined during the trial, not while considering a discharge application.”
The court also believed the maid’s statement was strong enough to proceed with the case, saying:
“It is to be presumed in ordinary prudence that no women would come before the court to make statement about her own chastity which is considered to be much more important than being alive in normal Indian traditional society.”
Revanna also argued that the SIT had no legal power to file the chargesheet since it is not a regular “police station.”
But the court disagreed, explaining that the SIT is a part of the CID (Crime Investigation Department) and made up of CID officers on deputation.
So, under a January 2024 government notification, CID is considered a police station, and therefore:
“The SIT would also be part of the CID, which was deemed to be a police station following a January 2024 notification.”
In this case, Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam and Advocate Arun G represented Prajwal Revanna, while Special Public Prosecutors BN Jagadish and Ashok Naik appeared for the SIT.
CASE TITLE:
SIT v. Prajwal
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Prajwal Revanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
