HC adjourns hearing on BSY’s plea to quash 2024 Pocso case
Yediyurappa has been accused of sexual assault of a minor girl in February 2024. The case was registered on March 14, 2024
The Karnataka high court on Wednesday deferred the hearing on a petition filed by former chief minister and BJP leader BS Yediyurappa to quash an FIR registered against him under the Protection of children from sexual offences (Pocso) Act for the alleged sexual assault of a minor girl in February last year.
Appearing for the state Criminal Investigation Department (CID), senior counsel Ravi Varma Kumar emphasised the severity of the allegations during the hearing before justice M Nagaprasanna, asking the court to dismiss the petition filed by the senior BJP leader. “This is a heinous crime. The Parliament has declared such offences as heinous, and a trial is necessary to address the charges against the petitioner,” Kumar said.
The high court was hearing the final arguments on Yediyurappa’s petition and has extended interim orders granting bail to Yediyurappa and exempted him from personal appearances before the trial court. Further proceedings are scheduled for January 17. Senior advocate CV Nagesh will appear on behalf of the leader.
The Sadashivanagar police registered a case on March 14, 2024, after the survivor’s mother complained that the assault happened when her 17-year-old daughter accompanied her on a visit to the senior BJP leader’s residence to seek some help. The survivor’s mother died from lung cancer in May 2024. Citing police inaction, the victim’s brother later filed a petition seeking Yediyurappa’s arrest and further investigation.
The case was later transferred to the CID which re-registered the FIR and subsequently filed a charge sheet.
The court also questioned the timing and validity of Yediyurappa’s petition, noting that it was filed after the complainant’s death.
The state government asked the high court to dismiss Yediyurappa’s petition, arguing that the petition was a calculated move filed after the complainant’s death. Kumar stated, “This is a gross abuse of the process of law. The petitioner remained silent while the complainant was alive and filed the petition only after her death.”
During the proceedings, Kumar referred to Sections 7 and 8 of the Pocso Act, which pertain to sexual assault and its punishment, as well as Sections 29 and 30, which outline the presumption of guilt and culpable mental state in Pocso cases. He argued that these provisions create a statutory presumption against the accused unless rebutted during the trial.
“A quashing petition under Section 482 (of the Code of Criminal Procedure) in a case under the Pocso Act is not maintainable since there is a statutory assumption of guilt in such cases on part of the accused,” Kumar told the court.
He also presented evidence, including a recorded conversation between the complainant and the accused to substantiate the allegations. He informed the court that the survivor’s brother had purchased a mobile phone for her, which was used to record the conversation and later uploaded to Google Drive. A forensic report confirmed the authenticity of the recording and matched the accused’s voice sample.
“The victim has given gory details of the incident, and her testimony alone is sufficient for conviction,” Kumar argued. He further highlighted that the accused admitted to paying ₹9,000 to the complainant, a fact corroborated by an advocate who the survivor approached to after the incident.
The court, however, questioned why the state had not registered the crime immediately after the case. Kumar responded that the victim’s family initially sought justice in an earlier Pocso case involving her but reported the present allegations only after confronting Yediyurappa.
Justice Nagaprasanna orally observed that the evidence, including the recorded conversation and forensic reports, strengthens the prosecution’s case.
Recommended Topics