Karnataka High Court Reserves Verdict On Former CM Yediyurappa's Plea To Quash POCSO Case

Countering the State's contention that ex-CM BS Yediyurappa 'calculatedly' filed his plea for quashing a POCSO case after the complainant's death, the BJP leader told the Karnataka High Court on Friday (January 17) that it wasn't that the complainant had told him when she was going to pass away, adding that he was not a magician. He further questioned the intervening one and half month time period between the alleged incident and registration of the FIR, adding that the conduct of the complainant maybe looked into. After hearing all the parties, Justice M Nagaprasanna reserved his verdict in the matter. The court was hearing the former CM's plea to quash a case registered against him under the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) Act. As per the complaint filed by the mother (complainant) of a 17-year-old girl, Yediyurappa sexually assaulted her daughter during a meeting in February last year, at his residence in Bengaluru. On March 14, 2024 the Sadashivanagar police had registered the case. Later, it was transferred to CID for further investigation which re-registered the FIR and filed a chargesheet.Opposing the State's contention that the petitioner waited till the death of the complainant to file the quashing petition senior advocate CV Nagesh appearing for the former CM said, "Prosecution played to the gallery. She did not tell me when she was going to breathe her last. I am not a magician". To this Special Public Prosecutor Senior advocate Professor Ravivarma Kumar appearing for the State responded by saying, "I do not play to the gallery. I have never done it. My comment on the affidavit and petition was...". The court at this stage however said that it had itself clarified the statement and orally added, "The main submission made that statement under Sec 161 cannot be relied. I will consider judgments referred by both sides and pass necessary orders. FIR is only the statement of the complainant," it orally said. At the outset Nagesh began his submissions by contending, "I will first answer to the submissions made by the prosecution. First submission the SPP made was regarding presumption against the accused referring to Sec 29 and Sec 30 of POCSO Act". During the previous hearing Kumar, had while pointing to Section 29 POCSO Act, argued that unlike the normal foundation for criminal jurisprudence, the petitioner is presumed to be guilty. Section 29 POCSO states that where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved. Section 30 pertains to Presumption of culpable mental state.Nagesh thereafter said, "At what stage is the presumption applicable, at the time of FIR, filing of chargesheet or framing of charge. Proof of contrary of presumption would not arise at the time hearing of discharge etc". Referring to Section 30 Nagesh said, "Now kindly go to Sec 30, when presumption for offence would be only during the trial, to find out what was his mental state. It cannot be prior to the trial". Nagesh while referring to a judgment of the Allahabad high court said that presumption can be only during trial. "Only after trial the burden shifts on the accused as regards presumption under Sec 29, 30 (POCSO)," he said. Nagesh said that at this stage when the petition is seeking quashing of trial court's order taking cognizance and the FIR, the prosecution cannot seek presumption which ensures to its benefit. "It will be available only after evidence is recorded," he added. Nagesh thereafter said, "The mother and daughter went back to the house of accused, the object was to take a picture with the accused and what mischief they did I do not know". At this stage the court orally said, "They even questioned you (Yediyurappa) about what you did".To this Nagesh said, "What happened on that day, I asked for the grievance of the complainant and called police commissioner of Bengaluru and asked the ladies to visit the PC(police commissioner). The same day they went and meet PC. When they met PC why no statement about incident was made. It raises a doubt". Nagesh thereafter said that on February 5, 2024 the complainant and her daughter visited the former CM at his house again. "If really any such incident had happened on February 2, would they have come again," he added. At this stage the court orally said, "They came not only for pic, but mobile recording and question and answer". To this Nagesh said that they did not come for questioning Yediyurappa but "only for taking picture" with him. He said that Yediyurappa spoke to the police commissioner again on February 5, 2024. "I am not disputing the recording as recorded in the phone of the victim as of now," he however added. Countering the prosecution's case Nagesh meanwhile argued, "A lady who suffered...

Karnataka High Court Reserves Verdict On Former CM Yediyurappa's Plea To Quash POCSO Case

Mustafa Plumber

Tags