Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Special Court for MPs and MLAs in Bengaluru on Friday, August 1, held former MP Prajwal Revanna guilty of rape in the first of the four cases against him. The court also found him guilty of recording a video of the rape. Investigators and prosecutors in the case said that the combination of the rape survivor’s testimony and strong forensic evidence, along with photograph matching, convinced the court of his guilt. The sentencing will be pronounced on August 2.
The rape survivor, a 47-year-old farm labourer, had filed a complaint stating that she had been raped on three occasions by Prajwal Revanna, twice at a farmhouse in Gannikada in Hassan and once at Revanna's family residence in Bengaluru. The incidents were said to have taken place in 2021. The complaint was lodged after thousands of sexually explicit video clips of assault, allegedly shot by Prajwal, started circulating just before polling for the Parliamentary elections in April 2024. Prajwal, the incumbent MP from Janata Dal (Secular), was contesting again from Hassan for the NDA alliance.
Following the uproar over the circulation of video clips which showed multiple women, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by IPS officer BK Singh was formed to investigate the allegations. Four complaints were filed against Prajwal for sexual assault and molestation.
A challenging forensic trail
One of the primary challenges for the investigators in the case was to prove that Prajwal had recorded the video of the sexual assault on the survivor. None of the clips showed Prajwal’s face. While the victim could be seen clearly, only the hands and genitals of the person recording the video could be seen. For this, the police relied on two studies, one from Turkey and another from Japan.
Both studies detailed how a suspect could be identified by capturing the physical characteristics of the genitals and comparing it with that of the suspect. It may be noted that such identification and comparison of the physical characteristics of hands and genitals are typically undertaken in many countries, specifically in offences involving child sex abuse videos. These videos typically have images of the child, while the perpetrator of abuse is only seen partially, with only hands and genitals visible.
As the videos started circulating, Prajwal had fled to Germany for more than a month and returned only on May 31. He was arrested on arrival and was sent for medical checks. While Prajwal was agreeable to a general medical test, he refused to have images taken of his body.
At that stage, even the doctors are said to have expressed their hesitation in taking images of his body. But the investigators sought judicial approval under Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and doctors then took photographs of parts of his body that were seen in the video.
A comparison between what was seen on video and photographs showed 10 marks to be matching on the hands and genitals. In addition, the audio heard on the video was found to match a sample of Prajwal’s voice.
The investigators were also able to match the scene of the crime to Prajwal’s room in the farmhouse and his room in the Bengaluru residence. During the mahajar of these locations, the police could clearly establish that the background seen in the video and the floor tiles were the same as his room.
The police had also recovered DNA from the survivor’s clothes (a petticoat), and this DNA sample was a match to Prajwal.
Prajwal was also found guilty under Section 66E of the IT Act, which is punishment for violation of privacy. The section punishes “whoever intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent, under circumstances violating the privacy of that person.”
The police were able to prove that the video was recorded by him as they presented evidence to show that the phone on which the video was shot was in his possession at the time of shooting the video and was only later transferred to his driver.
A senior police officer of the SIT said that they were extremely happy with the verdict. “We needed this result, or else all our efforts would have gone to waste,” the officer said.
Even though the forensic evidence was strong in the case, the crucial factor for the conviction was the statement of the victim. Both investigators and prosecutors in the case were appreciative of Mridula’s (name changed) testimony. “Even though she was disturbed, when she saw the video and during cross-examination, she did not hesitate,” Special Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha said.
He said that she broke down in tears in court several times – when she was testifying, when she saw the video, when she was cross-examined and even when the verdict was announced – but she remained steadfast.
Our coverage of this case can be accessed here.