Relief for Raghaveshwara Seer: High Court bins criminal revision petition

The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed the criminal revision petition challenging the discharge and acquittal of Raghaveshwara Bharathi seer of Sri Ramachandrapura Math of Hosanagar taluk in Shivamogga district in a case of the alleged rape.

Both the state government, through the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), and the victim, a Ram Katha singer, had challenged the order of the trial court.

Citing the judgment of the coordinate bench, Justice V Shrishananda said that the charge sheet filed by the head of the investigation team of CID is not a charge sheet in the eye of law as it is not filed by the officer in charge of a police station in terms of Section 173 of CrPC. Applying the principles in Dhakkal's case and Kerala Transport Company's case, the court has also noted that since the state government has already challenged the order of the trial court, a separate revision petition by the victim is not maintainable.

In regard to the charge sheet filed by the CID, the court observed that, unlike CCB, the state government has not notified CID as a police station. "If the charge sheet is filed by a person who is not the authorised person to file a final report as is contemplated under Section 173 of CrPC, the entire proceedings would definitely stand vitiated. Consequently, the further proceedings in pursuance of the said charge sheet is to be declared as non est,” the court said.

The CID had filed the charge sheet against the seer for the offences under Sections 376 (2) (f), 376 (2) (n) and Section 508 of IPC. The charge sheet stated that the FSL report confirmed that the DNA sample found on the material evidence matched with the DNA of the seer. The charges included IPC section 508 since the seer allegedly threatened the victim of incurring divine pleasure (if she did not comply).

Before the stage of hearing before charge (HBC), the seer had filed a discharge application under Section 227 of CrPC. The CID and the victim objected stating that since the charges were serious, only a trial would unearth the facts. The special court on March 31, 2016 passed the order discharging the seer.

The state government and the victim challenged this order before the high court by filing criminal revision petitions. In the revision petition, the state government contended that the trial court had failed to appreciate that the expert opinion in the form of DNA report has a presumptive value and prima-facie to be accepted to be true unless discredited or impeached in trial.

Watch the latest DH Videos here: