In a spine-chilling turn of events, the Karnataka High Court has refused to dismiss the criminal complaint filed against a lawyer accused of sexually assaulting one of his interns. The harrowing case has sent shockwaves through the legal community, raising concerns about the safety and vulnerability of interns working in such environments.

Justice M Nagaprasanna, presiding over the case, made a bone-chilling observation, stating that any intervention by the court would merely applaud the petitioner's insatiable lust and depraved desires. The court emphasized that if a young and aspiring law student, seeking knowledge and experience, falls victim to such heinous acts within the supposed sanctuary of an advocate's office, it would undoubtedly cast a chilling effect on the entire legal profession.

The distressing incident unfolded when a law student joined the accused lawyer's firm as an intern in August 2021. On a fateful evening, when the two were alone in the office premises, the lawyer allegedly summoned the intern to his cabin and attempted to rape her. The gravity of the situation escalated when the victim revealed that she had surreptitiously recorded a phone call in which the accused lawyer admitted to the attempted rape.

Consequently, a complaint was lodged against the lawyer, charging him with rape and other related offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Alarming as it may sound, the accused lawyer admitted his guilt regarding charges under Sections 354A (sexual harassment), 354B (assault or use of criminal force to disrobe a woman), 354C (voyeurism), and 354D (punishment for stalking) of the IPC. However, he vehemently denied any prima facie evidence to support the remaining charges.

The lawyer's defense centered around the fact that the chargesheet and the complaint failed to indicate the actual occurrence of rape. Moreover, he highlighted that during the victim's medical examination, she informed the doctor that no sexual intercourse had taken place. Nevertheless, the court observed that the accused lawyer occupied various positions of trust and authority over the intern, fulfilling the criteria set forth in Section 376(2)(f) and Section 376(2)(k) of the IPC. The court further pointed out that the accused lawyer held control and dominance over the victim, holding a position of authority, as per Section 376C(a) of the IPC.

Regarding the defense's claim of an attempted rape rather than a completed act, the court declared it a disputed matter of fact, necessitating a trial for proper resolution. The court also dismissed the defense's reliance on the victim's extrajudicial statement to the doctor, asserting that the presence or absence of rape would ultimately be determined by the evidence presented during the trial.

Although the Karnataka High Court could not delve deeply into the facts of the case under its jurisdiction, it affirmed its trust in the trial court's ability to frame appropriate charges based on a thorough examination of the evidence. Consequently, the court concluded that interference at this stage was unwarranted, leading to the dismissal of the petitioner's plea.

This chilling case serves as a stark reminder of the potential horrors lurking within supposedly safe spaces, urging the legal community to reevaluate the protection and well-being of interns. The legal fraternity is left grappling with unsettling questions, as the trial court prepares to delve into the frightening depths of this shocking incident.

Case Title: Rajesh KSN v. State of Karnataka and Anr