Supreme Court rejects Prajwal Revanna plea for transfer of rape trials to another judge

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the plea filed by the former Janata Dal (Secular) MP Prajwal Revanna to transfer his trial in two pending rape cases from the 81st Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru to some other sessions court [Prajwal Revanna v. State of Karnataka]..Revanna raised apprehensions that the trial judge was likely to be biased against him since the same judge had earlier convicted him in another rape case. In particular, the observations made by the trial judge were flagged.However, a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that trial judge had made the comments in reference to the record of the trial and keeping in mind the observations made by the Karnataka High Court. These observations of the trial judge cannot be the foundation to claim bias or pre-judge the issue, the Court opined."We have no doubt in our mind that the presiding judge shall not be swayed by the fact that the petitioner was found guilty in the earlier case and shall conclude trial on the basis of evidence furnished in present trial and no inference shall be drawn on basis of previous conviction and the trial which led to such conviction more so when appeal is pending before the High Court," CJI Kant said in the order. .Revanna approached the Supreme Court after Karnataka High Court dismissed his transfer plea in September. Revanna sought directions to transfer the trial in two cases that involve offences under Sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape), 354A (outraging modesty), 354B (assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe), 354C (voyeurism), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 201 (hiding evidence) of the Indian Penal Code. These cases also involve the charge under Section 66E (transmitting images in violation of another's privacy) of the Information Technology Act (IT Act).These are two of four cases that were filed against Revanna last year after over 2,900 videos depicting the sexual assault of several women were circulated online, including on social media.In August this year, Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat convicted Revanna in one of the rape cases filed against him, which involved allegations that he repeatedly raped a maid employed by his family. Revanna was sentenced to life imprisonment in that case and is presently lodged at a Central Jail in Bengaluru. An appeal against this trial court verdict is pending before the Karnataka High Court. .During the hearing of the transfer plea today, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, representing Revanna, referred to the observations made by the High Court.CJI Kant remarked that a Court's observations should not lead to allegations against it."There are hypothetical situations in court. We make observations. But I am not someone who will take browbeating. Not so easy with me. As soon as the judge makes an observation there are allegations made against him," CJI Kant said.However, CJI Kant also acknowledged that the judges sometimes make mistakes."Sometimes we make errors but we rectify it. I just did it. We deal with such large volume of cases and evidence," he said..Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, also representing Revanna, pointed to the trial judge's observations."Please see what the trial court observed that the accused was taken aback by framing of charge," he said.Dave said that observations had been made even against the counsel. At this CJI Kant said,"Court was correct because lawyers were being changed so often."However, Dave insisted that the observations against lawyers should be expunged. Luthra also made the same request. However, Justice Bagchi said that lawyers cannot hold judicial officers to ransom."Mr Dave! The remarks were inspired by the HC order itself on the same lines. You cannot have the judicial officers be held at ransom. This lawyer appears in collateral cases and withdraws the vakalatnama!"CJI Kant said that the counsel can furnish apology before the High Court."This is absolutely professionally unethical thing done. Let him furnish apology before HC and HC will consider it. We don't want to send a message that I went to SC and got this done. We have to take care of the morale of our district judiciary as well," Justice Kant said, while declining to interfere..[Read Live Coverage].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.