Prajwal Revanna.
Credit: DH File Photo
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Thursday disposed of the petition filed by former Hassan MP Prajwal Revanna, seeking the clone copies of electronic evidence collected by the police from his driver's mobile phone in connection with the rape and sexual assault cases against him.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said that only material relied upon by the prosecution will be provided to the accused in terms of CrPC section 207, observing orally that “Just because it is Prajwal Revanna, law cannot be changed.”
Prajwal Revanna had moved HC challenging the rejection of his application under CrPC section 207 for certain electronic evidence, clone copies of the entire content retrieved from a mobile phone seized from his driver.
The counsel submitted that content of the phone forms part of the forensic report dated June 18, 2024 and the same has to be provided as those images are necessary and the route of travel of those images would also become necessary for Prajwal Revanna to defend his case.
It was further submitted that the seized phone in its entirety has been examined and subsequently every investigating officer has taken the phone and examined material related to each case and hence the petitioner is entitled to the entire data.
On the other hand, Additional State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesh argued that copies of relevant data has been provided to the petitioner and said that it is only delay tactics adopted by the petitioner.
The court observed that the prosecution is not relying on the entire data from the phone and that the crux of CrPC section 207 is to provide material to the accused that the prosecution is relying upon. “Copies will be given protecting the identity of the women. This is the order to be passed. Just because it is Prajwal Revanna, law cannot be changed,” Justice Nagaprasanna orally observed.
The court further said, “If the data is related to this case, prosecution will give. You cannot ask for data of all other women. In cases involving the privacy of the victim, the court can provide only inspection. Whatever inspection you require, will permit, but not provide copies in a pen drive.”