Karnataka High Court discharges H.D. Revanna from sexual harassment case citing unexplained delay of over four years in lodging complaint

In a major relief for JD(S) leader and former minister H.D. Revanna, a special court in Bengaluru has discharged him from the allegation of sexually harassing his 47-year-old former maid when she was working at his house in Hassan during 2020.

The Special Court of Magistrate for criminal cases against former and present MPs and MLAs declined to take cognisance of the offence under Section 354A (sexual harassment) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against him by stating that both the complainant and the prosecution had failed to provide reasonable explanation for the court to take cognisance of the alleged offence by condoning the delay, under Section 473 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), of over four years in lodging the complaint.

K.N. Shivakumar, judge of the special court, in his December 29 verdict, declined to accept the claim of the prosecution that the complainant woman took over four years to lodge the complaint due to fear of political power of Mr. Revanna.

The Court pointed out that she had stated in her complaint that after she had left her job at Mr. Revanna’s residence, a house granted to her under a housing scheme of the government was demolished, and that had she had lodged a complaint against Mr. Revanna on demolition of her house with the Deputy Commissioner and the district police, Hassan.

“When she had no fear in approaching the Deputy Commissioner and the district police against Mr. Revanna when her house was allegedly demolished at the instance of him, how come she had such a fear to lodge complaint or to take legal action or to disclose about incident of alleged sexual harassment,” the Court questioned.

Pointing out that she had not mentioned the date or even the year of occurrence of alleged instances in her complaint, the Court said that even if she could not complain during 2020 to 2022, while she was still working in his house, she could have lodged complaint subsequent to 2022, after she left the job. “But, for the reasons best known to her, she had not done so till April 2024,” the Court observed. Also, even the Special Investigation Team (SIT) too had neither recorded nor explained reason for the delay in launching prosecution, the Court said.

Indicating that the complainant may have forgotten the alleged incidents involving Mr. Revanna as memory fades from the minds of victims or affected persons if the offences are not severe in nature due to lapse of time, the Court said that the subsequent serious offences of alleged rape by his son, Prajwal Revanna, might have, as an afterthought, made her add the alleged instances involving Mr. Revanna while complaining against Mr. Prajwal.

The Court further said that to come to any conclusion as to what would be “the interest of justice” — whether to condone the delay and take cognisance of the offence, or not to condone the delay and refuse to take cognisance of the offence — it is necessary to weigh the balance between the degree of harm or injustice that would be caused to the victim, or the depth of harm or prejudice that may be caused to the accused.

On considering the nature of overt-acts alleged against Mr. Revanna, the Court said that “it appears that from such acts, there might not be any such severe effects or harm or injury caused to the complainant”.

The Court said that it may not be necessary to condone the delay of more than three years in lodging the complaint as “such an action may lead to unwanted delay and multiplicity of proceedings in respect of other/severe offences [of rape] alleged in this case against Mr. Prajwal, which is pending trial before the sessions court.”

“If any such graver effect or injury was caused, definitely she would have taken legal action against the accused without any delay, as she did, when her residential house was demolished at the instance of this accused as alleged in the complaint. Even after lapse of three years of alleged incident, she did not choose to take any such recourse... Further, she had been working in the house of Mr. Revanna for about two years even after alleged incident. This also fortifies such inference,” the Court.

“On the other hand, initiating prosecution for such acts allegedly done by the accused who is presently a member of Legislative Assembly in the State would definitely affect his political life career to some extent,” the Court noted.

The High Court, in its November 19 order, had quashed the allegation of “outraging the modesty of woman” made against him under Section 354 of the IPC, stating that no such allegations existed in her complaint but had asked the special court to re-examine whether “it is a fit case to take cognisance under Section 354A by condoning the delay of more than three years, from the dates of alleged offences, in lodging the complaint”.