1.A Special Court in Bengaluru has convicted Janata Dal (Secular) leader and former MP Prajwal Revanna in a landmark sexual assault case
2.Background: The Case and the Charges
3.The Courtroom Proceedings
4.The Survivor's Testimony
5.Key Evidence: Forensic Science and Genital Mapping
- Genital Mapping & Anatomical Print
- Digital Evidence
- DNA Analysis
- Voice Sample & Location Analysis
6.Defense Arguments
7.Prosecution’s Arguments
8.The Judgement
9.Conclusion
10.FAQs
Introduction
A Special Court in Bengaluru has convicted Janata Dal (Secular) leader and former MP Prajwal Revanna in a landmark sexual assault case that has shaken political and social circles across Karnataka. Revanna, who was found guilty of raping a domestic worker at his family’s farmhouse, faces life imprisonment, multiple additional charges, and a substantial fine imposed by Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat.
Background: The Case and the Charges
The survivor, a daily wage farm labourer, worked at Revanna’s family farmhouse in Hassan's Gannikada. She testified that between 2020 and 2021, Prajwal Revanna repeatedly raped her, filmed the assaults, and used the videos to intimidate and silence her. Charges were framed under:
- Section 376(2)(k), IPC – Rape committed by a person in a position of dominance or trust over the victim, exploiting that position.
- Section 376(2)(n), IPC – Commission of rape repeatedly on the same woman.
- Section 354(A), IPC – Sexual harassment, including unwelcome physical contact, advances, sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography, or making sexual demands.
- Section 354(B), IPC – Assault or use of criminal force with the intent to disrobe a woman.
- Section 354(C), IPC – Voyeurism, i.e., watching or capturing images of a woman engaging in a private act without her consent.
- Section 506, IPC – Criminal intimidation by threatening harm to person, reputation, or property to cause alarm or compel action.
- Section 201, IPC – Causing disappearance of evidence or providing false information to shield an offender.
- Section 66(E), IT Act – Violation of privacy by capturing, publishing, or transmitting images of a person’s private area without consent via digital means.
The case gained national attention after thousands of explicit video clips, allegedly shot by Revanna, began circulating just before the 2024 Parliamentary elections, triggering a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe.
The Courtroom Proceedings
Judge Bhat described the prosecution’s challenge as “Herculean.” The court noted the widespread outrage and high expectations given Revanna’s status and the sensitive nature of the digital evidence. The crime was committed by a politically powerful individual, against a woman with little social support, relying on her employment for survival.
The Survivor's Testimony
The survivor, in her detailed deposition, described repeated sexual assaults that were digitally recorded by Revanna on his mobile phone, sometimes accompanied by threats and intimidation. She explained how she lived under constant fear, unable to report the crime for months due to blackmail with the videos.
Key Evidence: Forensic Science and Genital Mapping
The prosecution faced monumental hurdles in proving that Revanna was the individual seen in the explicit videos, as his face was not visible—only his hands and genitals. Investigators and experts from the Karnataka State Forensic Science Laboratory analyzed the clips using advanced forensic methods:
- Genital Mapping & Anatomical Print: SIT employed cutting-edge Turkish forensic technology, referencing international studies showing how anatomical and genital characteristics can be matched to a suspect, standard in child sex abuse cases. Rape video screen grabs were matched with medical photography taken of Prajwal upon his return from Germany, after judicial approval under Section 53A CrPC.
- Digital Evidence: Apple Inc. confirmed that an iPhone registered to Prajwal was used to film and store the videos. This evidence was critical after Revanna denied owning the phone and later claimed it was lost. The court held that he intentionally destroyed the device leading to conviction under Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence).
- DNA Analysis: DNA matching of hair follicles and biological stains found on the victim’s clothing at the farmhouse further supported the survivor’s testimony and linked the assaults directly to Prajwal.
- Voice Sample & Location Analysis: Voice samples and video superimposition placed Prajwal at the crime scenes. Forensic comparison of body features in the videos and photographs provided compelling corroboration of the survivor’s statement.
Defense Arguments
Revanna's legal team and senior advocate Nalini Mayegowda painted the allegations as part of a political conspiracy, timed to coincide with the 2024 general election. They questioned the timing of the videos and the survivor’s credibility, stating there was no official employment record and doubting her presence at the farmhouse. They asked for leniency on grounds of Revanna's clean record, family responsibilities, and claimed his suffering due to incarceration.
Furthermore, it was contended that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) cannot be treated as a police station like the CID Police Station. He argued that the SIT was formed by drawing officers from the CID, which is now a police station. The Senior Counsel also filed an organization chart of the CID, stating that only the CID and another Special Wing, CEN Police Station, are declared as police stations and stated that the SIT cannot be considered a police station. (Smt.Premalatha Diwakar Vs. State of Karnataka and others)
Additionally, if the incident occurred in 2021, the complainant could have promptly informed the police, and the unexplained delay in filing the complaint weakens the case. In additional discharge grounds, the filing of the final report violates settled law which is a point already upheld by the Karnataka High Court in another matter.
Revanna himself addressed the court, pleading in English and Kannada for mercy and asserting,
“The complaint against me was filed just six days before the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. This was done to ensure my defeat in the election.”
Prosecution’s Arguments
Special Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadeesh noted that four volumes of material were collected against the accused, followed by an additional charge sheet before the committal court. The Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the complainant’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., along with witness accounts from her sister, son, and husband, corroborate that she was employed as a maid in the accused’s house at the relevant time.
Additionally, the viral video showing the alleged assault was sent to the FSL, which confirmed it was neither edited nor morphed. The victim identified herself in the video, and the accused’s voice sample, collected with court permission, matched the recording. Even if the video’s authenticity were questioned, the victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. provide sufficient material at this stage.
The crime was “brutal, premeditated, and aggravated by the fact that Revanna filmed the sexual act without the victim’s consent and later blackmailed her.” He called for maximum punishment to serve as a deterrent, emphasizing Revanna’s privileged position and the psychological toll on the survivor including suicidal ideation triggered by the video’s circulation.
On the contending counsel’s claim that the SIT lacked authority to file the final report, the Special Public Prosecutor cited the Karnataka High Court’s ruling in Crl.P.No.1724/2025 (decided 07.03.2025), which held that the SIT, as part of the CID, is deemed a police station and its charge sheet was lawful. Furthermore, judgment relied on by the defence in WP No.56574/2018 was inapplicable and had been stayed by the Supreme Court.
Additional prosecutor Ashok Nayak added that, as a public representative, Revanna should be held to higher standards:
“He is wealthy, not a poor man. A significant portion of the fine must go to the victim. She has suffered social consequences and cannot return to normal life due to the circulation of the video.”
The Judgement: Abuse of Power, Deliberate Planning, and Societal Impact
The court systematically rejected all defense claims, citing the credible witness testimony and overwhelming forensic evidence. The judgement noted repeated attempts by Revanna to delay proceedings including frequent lawyer changes and non-cooperation which, it stressed, were deliberate acts to delay justice.
On review, it was admitted that only an officer in charge of a police station can file the final report. At the time of notification, the SIT was not designated as a police station, though it was part of the CID. The court held that forming a SIT within the CID and directing it to report to the government does not invalidate the process, as the CID—declared a police station—retains the authority to file the report. Reliance was placed on Smt. Premalatha Diwakar v. State of Karnataka, which affirmed this position.
In delivering the verdict, Judge Bhat emphasized the “grave offence” committed by a sitting legislator who abused his position:
- Multiple instances of rape spanning months
- Deliberate video recording for blackmail
- Circulation of explicit videos causing public shame and trauma
- Erosion of trust in legislators and public officials
- Psychoogical suffering of the victim
- Attempts to delay and obstruct justice
- Destruction of digital evidence
The judge stated, “In matters pertaining to murder, a person dies once. However, in the case of sexual offences like rape, she will be made to suffer throughout her life.”
Conclusion
The court imposed life imprisonment for the rape charges and additional sentences for the other convictions, along with a fine of ₹11.60lakh (with ₹11.25lakh directed to be paid to the victim). Prajwal Revanna was immediately escorted to Bengaluru Central Prison under tight security. The verdict is expected to have significant deterrent impact, with further cases against Revanna still pending trial.
Special Investigation Team Chief BK Singh praised the victim’s determination and the prosecutorial rigor, stating, “She stood firm despite the odds. This conviction will bring hope and peace to many victims in society.”
FAQs
1. What were the key defense arguments in Prajwal Revanna’s case?
The defense claimed the case was a political conspiracy timed before the 2024 elections, questioned the survivor’s credibility and presence at the farmhouse, and sought leniency citing Revanna’s clean record. They also argued the SIT had no authority to file the final report and pointed to delays in the complaint as weakening the prosecution’s case.
2. What was the key evidence in Prajwal Revanna’s rape conviction?
The prosecution relied on advanced forensic science, including genital mapping using Turkish technology to match anatomical features from explicit videos to Revanna, confirmed by medical photography under CrPC Section 53A. DNA from the survivor’s clothing, voice analysis, and Apple Inc. data linking the videos to Revanna’s iPhone were pivotal. The court also noted Revanna’s destruction of the phone, supporting the charge under Section 201 for evidence tampering.
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
