The chargesheet against former Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa in the minor sexual assault case presents a detailed account of the alleged events, supported by forensic evidence, witness testimonies, and digital data analysis. The Special Investigation Team (SIT) has built its case using a retrieved video recording, CDR analysis, and forensic voice examination linking Yediyurappa and his aides to the survivor and her mother.
TNM went through the 750-page chargesheet, submitted to the court by the SIT on June 27, 2024. This includes a critical video recovered from the minor’s phone. This video, along with call logs, voice analysis, and visitor records, form the backbone of the prosecution’s case.
The 81-year-old former CM is accused of sexually assaulting a 17-year-old girl at ‘Dhavalagiri’, his Sanjaynagar residence, in Bengaluru on February 2, 2024. According to the complaint, the girl and her mother had approached Yediyurappa for help with an older sexual assault case from 2015 involving the minor and her cousin. The chargesheet states that Yediyurappa took the girl to a separate room under the pretext of questioning her and then sexually assaulted her. After leaving, the girl recounted the incident to her mother at a coffee shop. They later returned to confront Yediyurappa, and the minor, who was aware of the demands for evidence during investigations into her earlier assault, recorded this confrontation on her phone. An FIR was registered on March 16, 2024, in Bengaluru, and the case was transferred to CID on March 17, 2024.
In his statement to the SIT on June 17, 2024, under Section 313 (examination of accused) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Yediyurappa denied allegations of taking the minor into a separate room and sexually assaulting her. Yediyurappa, however, admitted, “ I held her hand and asked about the injustice done to her.”
According to the chargesheet, after the assault, Yediyurappa told the minor and her mother that he was helpless and could not intervene in the previous sexual assault case. He admitted to the CID of offering an amount of Rs 8,000 to 9,000 to the minor.
After leaving, the mother and daughter went to the nearby cafe, where the minor confided in her mother that Yediyurappa had sexually assaulted her. Following this revelation, they returned to Yediyurappa’s house, where the mother confronted him.
The retrieved video captures a confrontation between Yediyurappa, the survivor, and her mother. The FSL confirmed that the video was continuous and unedited, with no signs of tampering or morphing. A conversation on the video between the victim’s mother and Yediyurappa establishes that he acknowledges he took the victim inside the room. The following are excerpts from the conversation:
Survivor’s mother: Appaji, what did you do? What did you do to my daughter inside the room?
Yediyurappa: She is like my granddaughter. I have seven grandchildren, and she is like one of them. She is a smart child. Nanu nodi, check maadide (I saw and I checked).
Survivor’s mother: I have 54,000 call records and all the other proof necessary. Form an SIT to investigate how everyone, including police, lawyers, and rowdies, have harassed me and my daughter. (She was referring to the previous sexual assault case.)
The video ends with Yediyurappa making a phone call, purportedly to Bengaluru Police Commissioner B Dayananda, urging him to assist the mother and daughter.
According to the chargesheet, the mother later shared the video on Facebook. The mother was forced to delete the video from Facebook and her phone. Yediyurappa’s associates didn’t know that the video was recorded on the minor’s phone, which the SIT retrieved later. The mother, who had been diagnosed with cancer, passed away in May 2024.
The FSL report states that the male voice in the video matches Yediyurappa’s voice samples with significant similarities in fluency, intonation, and accent. This conclusion was reached using cepstral coefficient analysis and auditory comparison.
Cepstral coefficient analysis is a technique used in speech processing to analyse and represent the characteristics of sound signals.
The Call Detail Records (CDR) analysis provides a digital trail that corroborates the timeline of events. On February 2, 2024, the CDR records show that the survivor and her mother were near Yediyurappa’s residence between 11:14 am and 12:49 pm, aligning with the timeline of the alleged assault.
On February 20, 2024, CDR records place Yediyurappa’s aides – Arun, Rudresh, and Mariswamy – at the survivor’s residence before bringing her to Yediyurappa’s house. The chargesheet states that after the video surfaced online, Rudresh and Mariswamy took the mother and daughter to Yediyurappa’s residence and forcibly deleted the video from the mother’s phone, unaware that a copy remained on the minor’s device. Rudresh also gave Rs 2 lakh to the mother to silence her, the chargesheet states. The CDR records of Yediyurappa’s phone confirm that he was at his residence on both dates.
In his SIT statement, Yediyurappa admitted that Rudresh gave Rs 2 lakh to the mother, claiming she had asked for money to pay electricity bills and rent. He maintained that all conversations occurred in the hall and denied taking anyone inside a room.
While Yediyurappa describes the Rs 2 lakh as a loan, the deceased mother maintained it was an attempt to buy her silence.
The police also sent visiting books and handwriting samples for forensic testing. Entries in the visiting register at Yediyurappa’s residence show that the mother and daughter visited on February 2, 2024, and again on February 20, 2024.
Current status of the case
The Karnataka High Court has reserved judgement on Yediyurappa’s petition to quash the case. During arguments, Special Public Prosecutor Ravivarma Kumar, representing the SIT, argued that under the POCSO Act, there is a statutory presumption of guilt, which can only be rebutted through a trial. He also said that the video recording of the survivor and mother’s conversation with Yediyurappa after the incident serves as crucial evidence.
The prosecution also highlighted the delay in the trial, noting that nearly a year had passed since the alleged assault and the case should go to trial as early as possible. A previous Karnataka High Court order in 2021 mandated that POCSO trials be completed within a year, adding urgency to the proceedings.