The Special Investigation Team (SIT) has requested the Karnataka High Court not to grant bail to former Member of Parliament Prajwal Revanna, convicted in a rape case, on the grounds that his release during the pendency of appeal would imperil both the victim and the administration of justice.
Appearing for the SIT, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Prof Ravivarma Kumar contended before the Division Bench of Justice KS Mudagal and Justice Venkatesh Naik T on Monday that Revanna’s past conduct demonstrated a propensity to reoffend and posed a significant threat to public safety.
He argued that the victim had previously faced abduction on two occasions. Any enlargement of Revanna on bail would risk further attempts to intimidate the victim or interfere with the parallel criminal proceedings involving his parents, in which she is a key witness.
The SPP pointed out that the mere possibility of delay in disposal cannot justify bail in cases where the conviction rests on cogent evidence and the gravity of the offence is severe. The trial had been conducted expeditiously and the appeal could similarly be taken up without undue delay, he added.
The SIT referred to the Supreme Court’s directions in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, which mandate priority monitoring of criminal cases against legislators and discourage dilatory tactics.
The SPP highlighted the political clout of Revanna, being the grandson of a former Prime Minister and a former District In-Charge Minister himself. The convict had allegedly mobilised the local administrative machinery in ways that impeded the victim’s protection, he added.
He claimed that Revanna had not cooperated with the investigation, attempted to obstruct the trial, and had failed to surrender the electronic device allegedly used to record the sexual assaults. The Counsel argued that such behaviour was incompatible with the standards required for the grant of suspension of sentence.
Regarding the evidentiary aspects, the SIT reiterated that in offences of sexual violence, the testimony of the prosecutrix, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction, a principle repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court in decisions such as State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi).
The contention that the primary recording device had not been seized did not dilute the evidentiary worth of the survivor’s testimony or the supporting material considered by the trial court, it added.
The SPP apprised the High Court that the victim, employed as a domestic worker at a farmhouse owned by the Revanna family, was subjected to repeated sexual assaults by Revanna during the Covid-19 lockdown period. The acts were allegedly recorded at multiple locations and subsequently used to coerce her into silence, he added.
On April 3, the trial court had framed charges against Revanna under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 376(2)(k) (rape by a person in a position of dominance), Section 376(2)(n) (repeated rape), Section 354A (sexual harassment), Section 354B (use of force with intent to disrobe), Section 354C (voyeurism), Section 506 (criminal intimidation), and Section 201 (destruction of evidence), as well as Section 66E of the Information Technology Act. On August 2, the court convicted and sentenced Revanna to life imprisonment.
As per the SIT, the well-established principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception did not apply once a conviction has been recorded, particularly for offences of such gravity. It urged the High Court to decline any interim relief under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stressing that the seriousness of the charge, the likelihood of witness intimidation, and the potential for societal harm far outweighed any plea for suspension of sentence.
The Division Bench is scheduled to resume hearing on Tuesday.
The post SIT opposes Prajwal Revanna plea seeking suspension of sentence in rape case appeared first on India Legal.