Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The special court in Bengaluru which sentenced former Member of Parliament Prajwal Revanna to life imprisonment for repeatedly raping a domestic worker said that he had exploited his position of power to commit the crime. Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat, in his 480-page judgement that Prajwal had exploited his position of power to commit the crime and that the evidence established the offences beyond reasonable doubt for repeatedly raping a domestic worker employed at his family's farmhouse.
The conviction stems from the first of four separate cases of rape and sexual harassment filed against Prajwal after a series of explicit videos, recorded by him, surfaced in April 2024.
The court found Prajwal guilty of exploiting his position of control and dominance to commit the assaults, which took place between 2020 and 2021. He was convicted under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 376(2)(k) and 376(2)(n) for rape by a person in a position of authority and for repeated rape, along with provisions relating to criminal intimidation, destruction of evidence and the use of criminal force with intent to outrage modesty.
Prajwal Revanna is the grandson of former Prime Minister HD Deve Gowda and the son of former Karnataka minister HD Revanna. Elected in 2019 as a Member of Parliament from the Hassan constituency, he was the youngest MP from Karnataka at the time.
The special court held that the prosecution had established the charges beyond reasonable doubt, based on consistent survivor testimony, forensic support and digital evidence. The judgement highlighted Prajwal’s use of power and influence, stating that the acts were committed while the survivor was under his control and dominance.
It noted the psychological trauma inflicted on the victim, the deliberate destruction of evidence and the erosion of public trust caused by a sitting legislator’s criminal conduct.
A crime of power and influence
In its judgement, the court stressed that this was not an ordinary crime. It involved a person who had been elected to represent the people using his position to harm someone who was socially and economically vulnerable. The court noted, “The question of commission of an offence by a Legislator is a serious aspect which is to be taken note of. In fact, the society looks at the legislature with a fond hope of transforming the society... They are the supreme authority of making laws towards the welfare of the citizenry."
The court said the survivor, a daily wage labourer, was targeted by Prajwal Revanna because of her vulnerability. She depended on the job at the farmhouse for survival and had no support system. The judgement explained how she was raped multiple times over several months and that she lived in fear, unable to report the crimes for a long time.
Sequence of events
The complainant, a daily wage labourer, testified that she was raped multiple times between 2020 and 2021 by Prajwal Revanna at his family farmhouse and their residence in Bengaluru. According to her deposition, the acts were recorded by Prajwal Revanna on his mobile phone without her consent.
The videos later surfaced online in 2024. The complainant told the court that Revanna used the recordings to threaten and silence her. The judgement noted, "The video was circulated and watched by several persons across the country, and also the ignominy which the victim had to undergo due to the horrendous act."
The investigation and evidence
The Special Investigation Team (SIT) investigating the case received assistance from the Karnataka State Forensic Science Laboratory and other expert agencies. The court praised the SIT for conducting a thorough, scientific and impartial investigation. It noted that the prosecution’s task was Herculean, given Prajwal’s profile, the nature of the digital evidence involved and the challenges in securing testimony from a vulnerable victim against a powerful political figure.
The court described the investigation as "scientific, careful, and based on hard facts." It cited forensic reports and digital analysis as crucial in establishing the sequence of events.
One key piece of evidence came from Apple Inc., which verified that an iPhone linked to Prajwal Revanna had been used to record and store the videos. When asked about the phone, Prajwal denied owning one. This denial was contradicted by other evidence, and the court concluded that he had deliberately destroyed the phone to hide proof of the crime. As a result, he was also convicted of destroying evidence.
Here is a breakdown of how the SIT proved Prajwal Revanna’s guilt.
A courtroom battle
Prajwal Revanna's legal team made several arguments during the trial. They claimed the case was politically motivated, pointing to the fact that the videos emerged during the 2024 elections. They also questioned the survivor's credibility, saying there was no record of her employment and that she could not prove she was at the farmhouse.
However, the court rejected these arguments. It found the survivor's testimony consistent and credible, supported by witnesses and forensic analysis. It also pointed out that Prajwal had control over the property where the crimes occurred, whether or not it was legally in his name.
Attempts to delay justice
The judgement also addressed Prajwal Revanna’s conduct during the trial. The court said he repeatedly tried to delay proceedings by changing lawyers and refusing to cooperate with court-appointed counsel. Despite being given multiple opportunities to defend himself, he did not make any clear or credible effort to participate in the process.
The judge criticised these actions, calling them deliberate attempts to delay justice. "The accused has been trying to delay the proceedings by changing counsels frequently and not cooperating with the court-appointed amicus curiae," the judgement stated.
The court imposed a life sentence, citing ten aggravating factors:
Abuse of power over a socially and economically vulnerable victim.
Multiple instances of rape over an extended period.
Deliberate planning, including video recording.
Circulation of videos, resulting in public humiliation.
Erosion of public trust in elected representatives.
Creation of fear in the mind of the victim.
Psychological trauma to the extent of suicidal ideation.
Use of the recordings to intimidate and silence the victim.
Destruction of digital evidence.
The acts were premeditated, not spontaneous.
The court said, "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."
Mitigating factors and court's rejection
Prajwal’s lawyers asked the court for leniency, pointing out that he had no prior criminal record and was only 34 years old. They said he came from a respected political family and had responsibilities, including taking care of his grandfather, HD Deve Gowda.
But the court was not convinced. It noted that his family members were powerful public figures themselves and did not rely on him for support.
The court also said that based on the materials produced before the court, Prajwal’s act could be construed as a crime against society.
“The important aspect of offences committed against women is to be emphasised with the gravity of the harm caused to the society and also the nature of the offences themselves. In many instances, the gravity of the offence cannot be easily deciphered, and the same requires to be considered in a manner which would indicate the mode of execution in secrecy by shrewd and snollygoster persons with sophisticated means. Time and again it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the cry of the victim is also to be appreciated at the time of imposing punishment. In the instant case, the society at large is to be considered as the main victim due to the act committed by the accused person.”
Compensation for the survivor
The court ordered that the survivor be compensated for the trauma and suffering she experienced. It directed that the payment should come from Prajwal himself, not from the government.
"It is nothing but the duty of the court and also society at large to suitably compensate the victim for suffering such ignominy. Awarding of compensation shall not be shouldered upon the State for the reason that the accused is quite capable and economically stable," the judgement said.
The court highlighted the broader implications of the case. It warned that crimes like these, especially when committed by public officials, undermine faith in democracy and legal systems.
The judge reminded that no one, no matter how powerful, is above the law. Quoting British jurist Lord Denning, the judgement said, "Be ye never so high, the law is above you."