The Karnataka High Court on Friday reserved judgment on former chief minister and senior BJP leader B S Yediyurappa’s petition to quash the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act case against him. Justice M Nagaprasanna reserved verdict after hearing the final arguments. A woman had lodged a complaint against Yediyurappa, accusing him of sexually assaulting her daughter, a minor, when they visited his house in February last year to seek help regarding an earlier case of sexual assault. The complainant died of cancer in May 2024. The chargesheet in the case was filed in July 2024. The Karnataka Criminal Investigation Department had also filed a chargesheet against Yediyurappa on June 27 under the Pocso Act and Indian Penal Code provisions related to sexual assault, destruction of evidence, and offering gifts to silence the victim. During arguments in the matter on Wednesday, Special Public Prosecutor Ravivarma Kumar argued on behalf of the Special Investigation Team that under the Pocso Act, there was a statutory presumption of guilt that would have to be rebutted in a trial. Other points raised by the prosecution included the purported recording of the conversation of the victim and complainant with Yediyurappa afterward, alongside the fact that almost one year had passed (a prior Karnataka High Court order in 2021 mandates that Pocso trials be completed within a year). On Friday, on the presumption of guilt, Yediyurappa’s counsel, senior advocate C V Nagesh, had argued, “At what stage would the presumption be raised is the question..the proof to the contrary would arise not at the stage of FIR, processing..”. He further argued that the presumption of guilt would not be absolute and would apply at the trial stage. Yediyurappa’s counsel also questioned the application of mind at the stage of taking cognisance of the FIR. While not doubting the authenticity of the voice recording that the prosecution had cited in the previous hearing – allegedly secretly recorded by the minor when she and her mother went back to speak to Yediyurappa after the incident – the counsel stated that Yediyurappa had been referring to the fact that he was checking the details of the earlier case, pointing out that the victim and the complainant had approached him for help with an earlier case of rape where the victim had been assaulted several years before.
