The ongoing legal saga involving former Janata Dal (Secular) MP Prajwal Revanna took a significant turn as the Karnataka High Court began hearing his appeal against the trial court’s conviction in a rape case. Before a Division Bench of Justices K.S. Mudagal and Venkatesh Naik on November 13, Revanna’s legal team launched a vigorous challenge to the August 1 conviction, asserting that the verdict was swayed by emotional factors and a hostile media environment, rather than being grounded in solid, incriminating evidence.

The core of the defence’s argument, led by Senior Counsel Sidharth Luthra, centered on a perceived lack of material evidence and serious flaws in the prosecution’s handling of the case. Luthra contended that the conviction, which resulted in a life sentence, was devoid of the necessary “incriminating material.” He meticulously pointed out what he alleged were contradictions in witness statements, suggesting that the trial judge was improperly influenced by the emotional presentation of the survivor during questioning. According to the defence counsel, such emotional factors were insufficient to form the basis for a maximum sentence.

Allegations of Lapses and Delays

A critical part of the defence strategy involved highlighting significant gaps in the timeline and handling of the evidence, which they argued raised “serious doubts” about the entire prosecution’s case.

• Delay in Reporting: Luthra underscored a substantial delay of three to four years between the alleged commission of the offence and its formal reporting.
• Delay in Recording Complaint: He further pointed out an additional delay of up to 48 hours in the recording of the survivor’s First Information Report (FIR) after she had initially approached the police.

These time gaps, the defence argued, were highly suspect and detrimental to the reliability of the allegations.

Concerns Over Evidence Handling and Sentencing

Beyond the delays, the defence counsel brought forth sharp criticisms regarding the investigation’s methodology and the integrity of the evidence presented:

• Chain of Custody: It was argued that the chain of custody was not properly established for the seized samples, citing a lack of proper sealing and storage procedures.
• Unexamined Key Witnesses: The defence criticized the prosecution for failing to examine key officers who were crucial to the investigation.
• Unusual Procedures: Luthra also took aim at what he termed “unusual procedures carried out by certain medical board witnesses” during the evidence gathering process.

The defence also argued vehemently against the speed and manner of the sentencing. Revanna was convicted on August 1, and the maximum punishment—a life sentence—was awarded the very next day. Luthra argued that this rapid progression denied the accused an adequate opportunity to present mitigating factors and a “meaningful hearing on sentencing.”

The Appeal for Interim Bail

In light of what they claimed were fundamental weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, the senior advocate sought interim bail for Revanna, noting that the former MP has already been in custody for a year since his arrest in May last year upon his return from Germany. The continued detention, Luthra asserted, was unwarranted given the allegedly fragile foundation of the prosecution’s evidence.

Revanna’s appeal is based on several grounds, including the claimed contradictions in the survivor’s testimony and the general inconsistencies within the prosecution’s evidence.

The case that led to the conviction pertains to a 48-year-old woman who worked as domestic help at the Revanna family’s Gannikada farmhouse in Hassan district’s Holenarasipura. She alleged that she was raped twice at the Hassan farmhouse and the Bengaluru residence in 2021, and that the accused had recorded the act on his mobile phone.

The trial court, in pronouncing its guilty verdict, had relied on a combination of technical evidence, including:

• Video footage
• DNA analysis of hair strands
• Biological traces found on the victim’s clothing

Revanna is facing a comprehensive investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) concerning four separate cases of rape and sexual harassment. The broader controversy erupted ahead of the Lok Sabha polls on April 26, 2024, when pen drives allegedly containing explicit videos involving Revanna were widely circulated in Hassan.

The High Court is scheduled to continue hearing the appeal on November 25, promising further intense legal debate on the reliability of the evidence and the validity of the trial court’s landmark judgment.