Introduction:

The Karnataka High Court has reserved its verdict in a fresh anticipatory bail plea filed by a suspended Janta Dal (S) leader, accused in a case of rape and sexual assault. The complainant, a woman employed as a domestic worker, alleges that the accused committed a series of sexual crimes against her. Opposing the bail, the woman’s counsel argued that forensic evidence, including a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, confirmed that a video, in which the accused’s voice and actions were recorded, is genuine and not morphed. The accused has been charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 376(2)n, 376(2)k, 506, 354(a), 354(b), and 354(c), alongside Section 66E of the Information Technology Act.

The case has generated significant public attention, both due to the gravity of the charges and the political influence of the accused’s family. The legal battle has seen multiple bail pleas filed by the accused, which the High Court has reserved its decision on, intending to pronounce orders for all the pleas collectively.

Arguments of the Complainant’s Counsel:

The complainant’s counsel, senior advocate Professor Ravivarma Kumar, presented a robust argument opposing the anticipatory bail plea. The cornerstone of his argument was the FSL report, which he claimed confirmed that the video in which the accused was caught in the act was genuine. The report allegedly states that the video had not been tampered with or morphed, and the accused’s voice matched the samples taken for forensic analysis.

Kumar urged the court to consider the “heinousness and severity” of the crime. He elaborated that the victim had fully explained the delay in filing the complaint. According to the complainant, she had been under the complete control of the accused, who had exploited his position of dominance over her. The complainant, a woman much older than the accused, had no means of escape and was subjected to repeated acts of rape and sexual assault both in the accused’s estate and later in Bangalore. Kumar highlighted that the complainant had no choice but to remain in the accused’s proximity due to her employment circumstances and the power dynamics at play.

Kumar emphasized that this was not an isolated incident, but a “serial rape” committed by the accused. He pointed to the political and financial power wielded by the accused and his family, which he argued made the accused a flight risk. The counsel also referred to the fact that the accused had left the country for a period of 34 days, further underscoring the argument that granting bail could lead to the accused absconding.

In addressing the delay in the complainant’s reporting of the crime, Kumar argued that the victim had been living in fear and under constant control, which explained why she had not immediately lodged a complaint. He noted that the victim’s sole testimony, combined with the FSL report confirming the authenticity of the video, was enough to convict the accused. The video evidence, which captured the victim’s cries and pleas, along with the accused’s speech, painted a clear picture of the crime, Kumar argued.

Kumar also questioned why the accused had filed a civil suit to restrain the media from circulating the video, implying that this was an attempt to silence the victim and suppress evidence. The fact that the accused had not filed any criminal complaint against the victim, nor denied the incident outright, further pointed to his guilt, Kumar contended.

Arguments of the Accused’s Counsel:

Representing the accused, senior advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi presented a defense focused on casting doubt on the complainant’s account and the circumstances surrounding the allegations. Navadgi argued that the complainant’s actions after the alleged incident raised questions about the credibility of her claims. He pointed out that the complainant continued to stay at the place where the alleged crime occurred even after the incident and prior to the COVID-19 lockdown, which he argued was unusual behavior for a victim of such serious crimes.

Navadgi also sought to downplay the significance of the video evidence, arguing that the video did not clearly show the accused’s face and that the phone used to capture the footage belonged to the complainant’s driver. He suggested that there could be ulterior motives behind the recording and the allegations, pointing to the accused’s political background and the ongoing disputes between the complainant and the accused over unrelated matters

In response to the FSL report confirming the authenticity of the video, Navadgi argued that even if the voice in the video matched the accused’s voice samples, it did not conclusively prove guilt. He asserted that the defense’s position was that the act was consensual, and the video alone could not establish coercion or lack of consent. Navadgi further pointed out that the complainant had not reported the incident immediately and that her continued presence in the accused’s home was inconsistent with the behavior of someone who had been subjected to such traumatic experiences.

Addressing the restraining order filed against media outlets, Navadgi explained that this was done to prevent the circulation of defamatory content and not to suppress evidence. He reiterated that the accused had cooperated with the investigation and had no intention of fleeing the country, despite his earlier international travels.

Navadgi concluded by urging the court to grant anticipatory bail, arguing that the accusations were politically motivated and that the accused had a strong defense based on the consensual nature of the relationship.

Court’s Observations and Judgement:

After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice M Nagaprasanna orally remarked that the allegations presented by the complainant were “too gory” and merited serious consideration. The court took particular note of the FSL report, which confirmed that the video evidence was genuine and that the voice in the video matched that of the accused. The court also inquired about the accused’s decision to file a civil suit to restrain media coverage, which raised concerns about potential attempts to suppress the victim’s narrative and the evidence.

Throughout the hearing, the court expressed its concern regarding the nature and gravity of the allegations. The fact that the victim had been under the control of the accused, coupled with the power dynamics and the political influence of the accused’s family, appeared to weigh heavily in the court’s considerations.

The court also highlighted the importance of the victim’s testimony, noting that even in cases where physical evidence is limited, the sole testimony of the victim can be sufficient to convict, provided it is credible and corroborated by other evidence, such as the FSL report.

After a detailed hearing, the Karnataka High Court reserved its verdict, stating that it would pronounce orders on all the anticipatory bail pleas collectively. The court’s final decision will likely hinge on the strength of the FSL report, the victim’s testimony, and the broader context of the case, including the accused’s potential flight risk and the severity of the allegations.