Conviction of Prajwal Revanna Upheld on Ocular, Digital, and DNA Evidence Despite Defense Challenges on Timeline and Evidence Handling: Bengaluru Sessions Court - 2025-08-04

Prajwal Revanna Convicted of Rape and Sexual Assault; Court Relies on Victim's Testimony, Digital Evidence, and DNA Match

Bengaluru, Karnataka – The Special Court for MP/MLAs has convicted former Member of Parliament Prajwal Revanna on multiple charges including repeated rape, sexual assault, voyeurism, and criminal intimidation. In a detailed judgment delivered by Sri Santhosh Gajanan Bhat, the LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, the court found the prosecution's case, built on the victim's testimony, corroborating digital evidence, and scientific analysis, to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court convicted Revanna under Sections 376(2)(k) (rape on a woman under one's control), 376(2)(n) (repeated rape), 354(A) (sexual harassment), 354(B) (assault with intent to disrobe), 354(C) (voyeurism), 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act.

---

Case Overview

The case was initiated following a complaint filed on May 5, 2024, by a woman who worked as a maid at the Revanna family's Gannikada farm house in Holenarasipura. The allegations centered on multiple incidents of sexual assault that occurred between 2019 and 2024.

The complainant alleged that during the 2021 COVID-19 lockdown, Prajwal Revanna, then a sitting MP, repeatedly raped her at the Gannikada farm house and later at the family's residence in Basavanagudi, Bengaluru. She testified that Revanna would call her into his room on a pretext, lock the door, and forcibly assault her, all while recording the acts on his mobile phone. She stated she remained silent due to fear, given the accused's political power and influence.

The matter came to light when explicit videos, allegedly featuring the victim and the accused, were circulated via pen drives and on social media just before the 2024 Parliamentary elections, prompting the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) by the Karnataka government.

---

Summary of Arguments

Prosecution's Case: Led by Special Public Prosecutors Sri. Ashok Naik and Sri. Jagadeesh B.N., the prosecution argued that the victim's testimony was consistent, credible, and of "sterling quality." They presented evidence from 26 witnesses, including: -

The Victim (PW.1): Provided a graphic and consistent account of the assaults. -

The Accused's Former Driver (PW.10, Karthik N.): A key witness who testified that he discovered thousands of explicit videos and photos on Revanna's phone, copied them, and eventually handed over a mobile device (Samsung Galaxy J4) containing the data to the SIT. -

Scientific Evidence: DNA analysis from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) confirmed that seminal stains found on clothes recovered from the farm house and on a mattress from the Bengaluru residence matched Prajwal Revanna's DNA profile. -

Digital Evidence: Experts from the FSL testified that the voice samples of the accused and victim matched those in the viral videos. A medical board also opined that physical markers on the person in the videos matched those of Prajwal Revanna.

The prosecution asserted that Revanna's act of leaving the country immediately after the polling and the video leak was a clear sign of guilt and an attempt to evade justice.

Defense's Case: Senior Counsel Smt. Nalina. M., representing the accused, mounted a multi-pronged defense, arguing that the prosecution's case was fabricated due to political rivalry. Key defense arguments included: -

Timeline Discrepancy: The defense produced a sale deed to argue that the Revanna family purchased the Gannikada farm house only in October 2021, contradicting the victim's claim of assault during the 2021 lockdown period prior to that. -

Evidence Tampering: The defense cast doubt on the integrity of the digital evidence, questioning the chain of custody of the mobile phone and pen drives. They argued that the certificates under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act were flawed. -

Witness Credibility: The defense attacked the credibility of the key witness, Karthik (PW.10), highlighting his pre-existing civil and criminal disputes with the Revanna family, suggesting a motive for false implication. -

Procedural Lapses: The defense pointed out alleged procedural errors during the investigation, such as the recovery of clothes from the farm house in the victim's absence and inconsistencies in the mahazar (crime scene) reports.

---

Court's Reasoning and Key Findings

The court meticulously analyzed the evidence and arguments, arriving at its conclusion based on a "cumulative effect" of the evidence.

"Yathra Naaryasthu Poojyanthe Ramanthe Thatra Devata... a horrendous and acrimonious act wherein obscene and vulgar photos pertaining to personal liberty of respectable women in the society become viral... created a havoc in the society," the judgment noted in its opening remarks, setting the tone for its decision.

On Victim's Testimony: The court held the victim's testimony to be credible and unshaken during cross-examination. It dismissed minor discrepancies in her statements as natural for a "rustic village woman" deposing about traumatic events, stating that such variations often indicate truthfulness rather than fabrication. The delay in reporting the crime was justified by the court, considering the accused's dominant position as an MP and the inherent fear instilled in the victim.

On Scientific Corroboration: The DNA evidence was deemed a crucial piece of corroboration. The court found that the FSL report, which matched seminal stains on the victim's recovered saree and the mattress to the accused's DNA, provided "unimpeachable scientific evidence" linking Revanna to the crime scenes.

On Digital and Ocular Evidence: The court found that the digital evidence, including the videos, voice sample analysis, and photographs, strongly corroborated the victim's account (ocular evidence). The testimony of the medical board, which compared photographs of the accused with the person in the explicit videos, further strengthened the prosecution's case. The court also accepted the testimony of the accused's former driver (PW.10), despite the defense's challenge to his motive, finding his account of discovering and handling the videos consistent with the overall evidence.

"The forensic evidence in the form of DNA fully corroborates with the evidence of the victim... The evidence of Medical Officer... would indicate that it was the accused person who had committed the offence," the court observed.

The defense's argument regarding the farm house's ownership timeline was rejected, as the court found sufficient evidence to prove the Revanna family's possession and control over the property even before the formal purchase.

---

Final Verdict

Finding the chain of evidence complete and conclusive, the court convicted Prajwal Revanna, holding that the prosecution had successfully established his guilt for the charged offenses. The judgment represents a significant legal outcome where a high-profile individual was convicted based on the powerful combination of a victim's testimony and modern forensic techniques, including DNA and digital evidence analysis.