Bangalore District Court
Smt. Saraswathy Parthasarathy vs Sri.Raghavan Sampath on 14 March, 2024
KABC030148532019
Presented on : 27-02-2019
Registered on : 27-02-2019
Decided on : 14-03-2024
Duration : 5 years, 0 months, 15
days
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM BENGALURU
Dated this the 14th day of March, 2024
Present : Shri Anand S Kariyammanavar, B.A., LL.B(Hon's).
I Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/s. 355 Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.4950/2019
Date of Offence : 03.11.2016
Name of complainant : State by CID, CCPS
Police Station, Bengaluru.
(By Learned Sr. APP)
Name of accused : Sri.Raghavan Sampath,
S/o Sampath,
Aged about 38 years,
# 224, 1st Floor, 14th main,
Tank Bund Road,
Subramanyanagar,
Bengaluru-560021.
2 C.C.No.4950/2019
(By Shri. V.K.C., Advocate)
Offences complained off: U/s. 67 & 67(A) of I.T. Act
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is convicted
Date of Order : 14.03.2024
JUDGMENT
This is a private complaint made by the complainant against the accused for the offences punishable u/s 67(A) of IT Act r/w 506 IPC. After registering the case the matter was referred to CID Cyber crime PS u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Later IO filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable u/s 67 and 67 (A) of IT Act.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case are that:-
The complainant is an engineering graduate and she was pursuing higher studies in Canada and also got job there and she got married to accused who was senior in her college and it is the love 3 C.C.No.4950/2019 marriage which was performed on 13.05.2013. Further it is the case of the complainant that immediately after marriage, she went back to Canada as she did not have any holidays and for better prospect and bright future complainant asked accused to come to Canada as there was good scope. For the same accused agreed and the complainant sponsored the accused's VISA and also permanent resident visa wihin the 8 months from the Canandian Embassy and she has spent substantial money in order to get VISA and flight ticket and immigration legal service.
However in the month of March 2014 accused suddenly refused to go to Canada and also he doubted character of complainant. Whenever she used to come to Bengaluru the accused used to check the complainant's mobile and her email without her permission. Therefore they decided to go for divorce. From January 2015 she did not have 4 C.C.No.4950/2019 any contact with accused either by phone calls or email. On 03.11.2016 at 3.21 PM, accused sent an obsence video to complainant's Email ID lenova- [email protected] from the accused email id [email protected] with a titled "Horny Babe Sucking Dick and Fingering Herelf:Free Porn 35". However the complainant did not click on said email link as it may be virus or spam but later she came to know that the accused deliberately sent the said email to her then she forwarded the same to his brother seeking advice and to enquire with the accused. The accused also admitted before brother of the complainant that he only sent an email. Then accused and his brother abused the complainant's brother.
Further it is the case of the complainant that accused has been spreading rumors claiming that the complainant is a lady in the said porn video and complainant is doing pornography video and due to 5 C.C.No.4950/2019 this complainant totally shocked to know that this was his intention to sending the said link to complainant. Later on 19.11.2016, she sent complaint through email to Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru. However she did not get any update from the Commissioner Office and on 04.01.2017, she came to India enquired about the complaint and she was directed to file complaint before cyber crime PS but they refused to take the complaint, therefore she filed present complaint.
3. The accused was arrested during crime stage and he was enlarged on bail. After filing of this charge sheet against accused, cognizance of alleged offences are taken and summons is issued to accused. Accused has appeared before court in pursuant to summons. Copy of charge sheet is furnished to accused u/s 207 of Cr.P.C and charge is framed against accused. Accused has not pleaded 6 C.C.No.4950/2019 guilt of alleged offences and he has claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 9 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked 29 documents as per Exs.P1 and P29 and also got marked M.O.1 & 2. On the contrary accused also led his defence evidence by examining himself as DW-1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to 9. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is recorded and accused has denied incriminating evidence against him. Accused has not led any defence evidence.
5. On the basis of charge sheet allegation, the following points arose for consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that on 03.11.2016 accused by his email id [email protected] sent an obscene and sexually explicit act video to the complainant email id lenova swats@ yahoo.in 7 C.C.No.4950/2019 with a title Horny Babe Sucking Dick & Fingering Herself Free Porn 35 thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 67 and 67(A) of Indian Evidence Act?
2. What order ?
6. Heard arguments. Perused written arguments of both sides and also oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and accused.
7. The following are findings to above points.
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1 : In support of its case, Prosecution got examined CW-5 as PW-1, he being one of seizure mahazar witness identified signature appearing in seizure mahazar which is marked as Ex.P.1 and his signature as Ex.P.1(a). Further he deposed that the said mahazar was drawn at Cyber Lab CID in the presence of pancha witness at that time accused was also present. Further he deposed that on that 8 C.C.No.4950/2019 day as per the instruction of Investigating Officer he collected password of the email ID used by the accused i.e.,[email protected] and opened the said email and got configured to Microsoft 2007 outlook then he copied the same to DVD. The said DVD is marked as M.O.1.
9. Further prosecution examined CW-3 as PW-2. He being one of the seizure mahazar witness deposed that on 30.11.2011, IO called him to the annex building room no.4 and mahazar was conducted in respect of obscene video sent by accused to his wife through E-mail and the said E-mails were downloaded by way of mahazar and later copied to DVD. Further he deposed that on the same day said E-mail was taken print out and he identified the same and marked as Ex.P.2.
10. Further prosecution examined CW-2 as PW-3. He being the brother of CW-1 deposed that CW-1 married to accused in the year 2013, at that time 9 C.C.No.4950/2019 she was working in Canada. Accused not went to Canada after the marriage though he had agreed to go to Canada along with his sister. Further he deposed that accused has sent obscene video through E-mail to his sister. Later CW-1 called him and told him to enquire about the same. Accordingly, he went to accused and enquired about the said email and video, then accused admitted before him that he only sent the said video. Later he also shown the said video to PW-3 and told that girl in the said video is CW-1 and he will prove the same. Later he informed the same to CW-1 then CW-1 sent a complainant through E-mail to Commissioner of Police. Accordingly, Subramanyanagara PS called the accused and enquired but they have not taken any action.
11. Further he deposed that when CW-1 came to Bengaluru in the month of January then she filed the private complaint and he submitted the video by 10 C.C.No.4950/2019 downloading the same in pen drive and handed over the same to police. The said CD is marked as Ex.P.3 and pen drive is marked as M.O.1. (Ought to be M.O.2). Later handed over the self attested E-mail print out sent by CW-1 to police along with 65(B) certificate same is marked as Ex.P.4 & 5. The E- mails are marked as Ex.P.6.
12. Further prosecution examined CW-1 as PW-4. She being complainant victim deposed that on 13.05.2013 she married to accused and since 2010 she was working in Canada. At the time of marriage accused agreed to join CW-1 in Canada. Accordingly, she had processed his Visa for permanent resident and she knew the accused person before marriage as both were studied in same college. Further she deposed that she received the VISA of the accused but without any reason he refused to come to Canada. Further she deposed that she was admitted in hospital for 1 and ½ 11 C.C.No.4950/2019 month as she underwent surgery and she came back to India in the month of December 2014 and she met the accused and his family members at the time accused requested to reprocess VISA and he is ready to come to Canada but concerned authority refused to reprocess VISA.
13. Further she deposed that when the VISA is not been processed then accused told with her that to apply for the divorce and she agreed to for the said proposal in the month of January-2015, thereafter there was no communication between complainant and accused either by phone or E-mail. But on 03.11.2016 she received E-mail from accused E- mail ID [email protected] to her E-mail ID lenovaswats @ yahoo.co.in. In the said E-mail he stated that "can you spare a minute". Then she replied saying that "what is this about". Later he sent one more E-mail with video link "Horney Babe Sucking Dick & fingering Herself" along with 12 C.C.No.4950/2019 picture porn video". After seeing the same she forwarded the said E-mail to CW-2 and asked him to check the matter. Accordingly, CW-2 went to accused house then accused brother shouted at CW-2 and they showed him the said video in their mobile phone and told that "she what your sister is doing in Canada" and they also abused CW-2.
14. Further she deposed that she sent complainant through E-mail to Commissioner of Police on 09.11.2016 and till 13.11.2016 there was no response and on 15.11.2016 she got response from the said office saying that matter is referred to local PS. In the month of January-2017 she returned to Bengaluru and approached Cyber Crime PS and Commissioner of Police and they told that it is a formal complaint, therefore they are unable to proceed the matter. Thereafter she contacted lawyer and filed complainant. The said private complaint is marked as Ex.P.7 and signature is marked as 13 C.C.No.4950/2019 Ex.P.7(a). Complaint sent to Commissioner of Police and Cyber crime are marked as Ex.P.8 & 9. Certificate u/s 65(B) is marked as Ex.P.10 & further she deposed that when Subramanya nagara police called the accused for enquiry then he sent one more E-mail to her Email id by apologing for sending porn video to her Email. Further as per the order dated 11.09.2023 PW-4 was recalled and got marked E-mail conversation and VISA documents as per Ex.P.22 to 29.
15. Further prosecution examined CW-6 as PW-5. He being one of the independent witness deposed that he know CW-1, 2 & accused. CW-2 is child hood friend. Therefore he know about their family since long time and in the year 2013 CW-1 and accused got married. However after marriage CW-1 alone went to Canada but accused refused to go Canada and CW-2 used to talk about their family dispute and in the month of November 2016 14 C.C.No.4950/2019 accused sent one E-mail to CW-1 and CW-2 informed the same to him and accused also told that the lady in the said obscene video is CW-1. Therefore accused not interested to join CW-1. Initially CW-2 approached police as per his advice and accused also admitted his guilt before the police and he also deposed that he has given his statement before the police.
16. Further prosecution examined CW-8 as PW-6. He being one of the independent witness deposed that he know CW-1, 2 & accused and he attended the marriage of CW-1 & accused and CW-1 was trying to get VISA to accused to go to Canada and helped both accused and CW-1 to get their marriage registration and certificate. However accused refused to go to CW-1 and later he came to know that accused has sent obscene video to CW-1 and they approached the police and CID and accused 15 C.C.No.4950/2019 was summoned before Subramanya nagara police and at the time he admitted his guilt before police.
17. Further prosecution examined CW11 as PW7. He being one of the Investigating Officer deposed that he received private complaint from the court and registered FIR in Cr.No.01/2017 and identified FIR as Ex.P.12 and later CW-2 appeared before him with the authorization letter of CW-1 and he recorded the statement and collected CD and pendrive consisting of disputed video from CW-2. He identified Ex.P.4, CD and pendrive. He also collected certificate u/s 65(B) from CW-2 which is marked as Ex.P.5. Further he deposed that on 07.02.2017 he issued notice to Yahoo.India.Pvt.Ltd., seeking details of E-mail i.e., Raghavan @ Yahoo.com . Details of E-mail the said document is marked as Ex.P.13 and signature as Ex.P.13(a) and also identified M.O.1 and Ex.P.3.
18. Further prosecution examined CW-12 as PW-8. 16 C.C.No.4950/2019 He being one of the Investigating Officer deposed that on 14.11.2017 he collected the file from PW-7 and recorded accused voluntary statement and accused admitted that the said E-mail id belongs to him, further in his voluntary statement stated that while he was browsing Xhamaster.com he came across a video in which a photo resembled his wife. Hence he forwarded the said video to CW-1 and accused also stated to IO that if he is given system and internet connection then he can open his email and show. Accordingly, the said voluntary statement is marked as Ex.P.17. After securing mahazar witness, computer system and internet connection was provided to accused to open his E-mail ID. Accordingly, he opened his E-mail ID and witness identified the mahazar and his signature as Ex.P.1(c). Later print out of the said E-mail was taken is already marked as Ex.P.2 and signature of 17 C.C.No.4950/2019 the witness is marked as Ex.P.2(b). Signature of the accused marked as Ex.P.2(c).
19. Further he issued notice to accused the said notice is marked as Ex.P.15. On the same day he created DVD by buring and transferred the entire inbox contents of E-mail of the accused. The said DVD is marked as Ex.P.16. Further he deposed that on 29.05.2018 and on 04.06.2018 he recorded the statement of CW6 to 8 and he sent notices to banks by forwarding the aforesaid E-mail id of the accused to secure the information whether any bank account is registered with the said E-mail Id. Witness identified reply sent by HDFC through mail same is marked as Ex.P.17 and it reveals that accused is having bank account in HDFC bank by attaching to the said disputed E-mail id. They also mentioned mobile number and address of the accused along with copies of account opening form mentioning email id of the accused. Further he deposed that he 18 C.C.No.4950/2019 also issued one more email to SBI bank they also sent reply which is marked as Ex.P.18 and they also sent KYC form and adhar card the same are together marked as Ex.P.19. The said E-mails were taken print out. Accordingly, section 65(B) certificate also issued same is marked as Ex.P.21 and after completion of the investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.
20. Further prosecution examined CW-10 as PW-9. He being Deputy Vice President of HDFC bank deposed that he has forwarded Ex.P.17 and 20 through E-mail to Cyber Crime police as per their requisition.
21. By relying on these oral and documentary evidence learned Snr.APP vehemently argued that the accused had sent porn video to CW-1 and it is not disputed by the accused about the same and documentary evidence clearly reveals that the said E-mail id belongs to him and the witness also 19 C.C.No.4950/2019 viewed the said porn video. Thereby accused committed offence punishable u/s 67 & 67(A) of IT Act. Thereby sought to convict the accused.
22. On the contrary in the present case the accused had taken following defences.
1. At no point of time he has sent disputed E-mail to CW-1.
2. There is no evidence about viewing/watching the disputed video link sent to CW-1.
3. Complainant E-mail not subjected for examination nor her laptop/mobile are seized.
4. The certificate issued u/s 65 (B) are not in proper format.
23. By relying on the above said defences and in order to substantiate the above said defences accused examined himself as DW-1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to 9. Further in his chief examination he deposed that they married in February-2013. After 5 days of her marriage she went to Canada and she 20 C.C.No.4950/2019 did not come to India and she was pressurizing the accused to give divorce and he agreed for the same and in the year 2016 he sent draft mutual divorce petition through email but she replied stating that he has to pay 65,00,000/- otherwise she will file adultery and harassment cases against accused. Later he consulted his lawyer for advice then lawyers told not to pay any amount as she went to Canada after 5 days of marriage and she is earning. Later accused and his parents called by Subramanyapura PS without any FIR as he sent E-mail to her then police told him that complainant is expecting apology letter from accused then police forced him to send alleged email from police station itself. Again after 15 days cyber crime PS called accused and took his mobile and laptop and email id details and once again cyber crime PS asked him to send one more apology E-mail and on same day they arrested him and produced before the court 21 C.C.No.4950/2019 and in the year 2017 he got email from the yahoo service provider the said document is marked as Ex.P.8. Certificate u/s 65 (B) is marked as Ex.D.9.
24. For the better appreciation of the case the above said defences are discussed as under:-
1. At no point of time he has sent disputed email to CW-1 In order to substantiate the above said defence learned counsel for the accused has relied upon the cross examination of PW-4 at page No.5 and 7 in which PW-1 stated that "it may be true if generally E-mail id and password of spouse are known each other but it was not there in our case". I do not know if mails of one spouse can be replied by other spouse generally. It may be true if an email is opened, a spam pops up. It is true to suggest that I had imposed three conditions under Ex.D2 e-mail. It is true to suggest that in Ex.D2 e-mail I had mentioned 22 C.C.No.4950/2019 that "I am here only till Friday this week. In case there is no response or no decision made I will file for divorce in court on the basis of harassment, adultery under mental torture" .
By relying on above said oral evidence learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that at no point of time accused has sent an E-mail to the complainant by attaching the said video. Further he also taken dfence that his email id was hacked. However except Ex.D-8 i.e., email from yahoo service provider none of the documents has been produced and on perusal of the Ex.D.8 the same was sent to accused on 04.10.2017 with a head line "updated notice of data breach" However the other than this document the accused has not produced the documents to establish that his email account has been hacked and thereby the said disputed email sent by hacking. Therefore the present defence does not hold water. 23 C.C.No.4950/2019
2. There is no evidence about viewing/watching the disputed video link sent to CW-1. At the time of argument learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that there is no piece of evidence which establishes that CW-1 or other witnesses had watched the said disputed video link. In order to substantiate the same the counsel for the accused has relied upon the complaint made by the complainant at paragraph No.5 she stated that "Upon receiving the video link from the accused-Raghavan, I did not click on it assuming that it was spam or virus". Further he relied upon cross examination dated 23.12.2021 at page No.21 of PW4 in which she stated that "I do not know if the said E-mail is not forwarded to any other person from the E-mail of accused". Further he relied upon the contradiction evidence of PW-4 by complaining complainant's avernment and examining PW-4 at page No.2 in which she deposed 24 C.C.No.4950/2019 that "I opened the said video and watched it immediately I forwarded the E-mail to my brother". Further he relied on the cross examination of PW-4 at page No.14 in which PW-1 stated that "I have seen disputed video on 03.11.2016 night EST (Eastern Standard Time). I have not taken print out of E-mail and web link of particular video as per Ex.P.6. Immediately after seeing above video....... And I have watched video in my gadget" .
25. By relying on the above said contradiction evidence the learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that in the complaint nowhere it is stated that CW-1 has seen the said video but during her chief examination and cross examination she deposed that she had watched the said video. Thereby counsel for the accused submitted that the above said contradictions has to be taken into 25 C.C.No.4950/2019 consideration as accused has not sent any such video link to CW-1.
3. Complainant Email not subjected for examination nor her laptop/mobile are seized.
In the present case learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the Investigating Officer not seized complainant's mobile or laptop and her email was not subjected to any examination. On perusal of the materials on record as there is a serious allegations of transmitting and forwarding obscene and porn video to complainant from the accused email id which prima facie establishes that the accused has sent email from his email id. Under such circumstances non examination the complainant's email id will not affect the investigation..
4. Certificate issued u/s 65(B) are not in proper format.
Further learned counsel for the accused 26 C.C.No.4950/2019 vehemently argued that the certificate produced by the prosecution u/s 65(B) is not in proper format thereby he sought to not to rely on the computer and other digital produce by the prosecution. By relying on the above said defences counsel for the accused sought to acquit the accused.
26. Now coming to the point of law, as there is a serious allegations against accused that he has committed the offence punishable u/s 67 and 67(A) of IT act 2000. For the better appreciation of the case both the provisions are reproduced as under:-
a) 67 of IT Act:- Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form:-
"Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a 27 C.C.No.4950/2019 term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees".
b) 67(A) of IT Act:- Punishment for publishing or transmuting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form:-
" Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form any material which contains sexually explicit act or conduct shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees".
27. On careful perusal of the above said two provisions of law in order to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients:-
28 C.C.No.4950/2019
1. Accused shall publish or transmit any obscene material in electronic form which is lacivious etc.,
2. Such material shall contain sexually explicit act or conduct.
These are two most important ingredients which has to be proved by prosecution. In order to establish the same prosecution has relied upon Ex.P.2 i.e., email sent from email id "[email protected] to lenova- [email protected] and the said email appears title as "Horny Babe Sucking Dick & Fingerin Herself:
Free Porn 35" in order to establish that the said sender email id belongs to accused. The prosecution has relied upon Ex.D.19 which is the account opening form submitted by the accused to the State Bank of India and on perusal of the email id column it reveals as [email protected]. Further Ex.D.20 which is the account opening form of HDFC bank account reveals in email id column i.e.,. 29 C.C.No.4950/2019 [email protected]. Therefore there is no any dispute that the sender of the said obscene and sexual explicit contents email id belongs to accused and those Ex.P.16 and 20 being sent through email the same was taken print out and in support of those print outs the IO himself submitted certificate u/s 65(B) of IT Act which is marked as Ex.P.21.
28. On perusal of the Ex.P.21, the IO specifically and clearly mentioned from which device he had taken print out of those documents. In the present case though counsel for the accused had taken the defence that email account of the accused was being hacked. However no substantial material evidence adduced by the accused. These Ex.P.2, Ex.P19 and Ex.P.20 clearly reveals that the said email has been sent by accused's email.id. Further in the present case the counsel for the accused though relied on the various contradictions of the witness in respect of viewing and watching of disputed video. However 30 C.C.No.4950/2019 as per the provisions of section 67 & 67(A) of IT Act mere transmitting or publish any obscene material or sexually explicit act is sufficient to constitute the offence. The said provisions does not speak about view and watching of the said obscene material by the victim. On the other hand from title of the link which attached to the email reads as "Horny Babe Sucking Dick & Fingering Herself: Free Porn 35" this itself clearly makes that the contents of email was obscene and sexual explicit act. Further on careful perusal of the contents in M.O.2 ie., pendrive same contains porn video by displaying the above said link also. Therefore the defence taken by the accused does not hold water. Therefore on careful perusal of Ex.P.2, MO.2 which are an email print out and video clip clearly reveals that the said email containing obscene material as well as sexual explicit act was sent by accused email id by the accused. Though the accused has produced Ex.D.1 31 C.C.No.4950/2019 to 9 the same are in respect of matrimonial dispute between the complainant and accused. The said documents does not prove the defence of the accused that the said email not sent by him. On the other hand certificate issued u/s 65(B) from the complainant as well as IO are in proper format which fulfill ingredients of certificate u/s 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act. The citations relied by the counsel for the accused not applicable to the present case. Therefore the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence I answer this point in the affirmative.
29. Point No.2: - For the reasons stated and findings given on point No.1, following is:-
ORDER Acting Under Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 67 and 67(A) of IT Act.32 C.C.No.4950/2019
( Typed by me directly on computer, revised, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 14 th day of March, 2024). Digitally signed by ANAND
ANAND S S KARIYAMMANAVAR KARIYAMMANAVAR Date: 2024.03.15 17:23:34 +0530 (Anand S Kariyammanavar) 1 st Addl. CMM., Bengaluru Heard the counsel for the accused and submitted that accused is working in a private company as a Manager if maximum sentence is imposed the same will affect his carrier as well as his family members will suffer greater hardship thereby sought to impose minimum sentence.
Perused the materials available on record. Complainant and accused are husband and wife and there were several matrimonial disputes were pending. By considering relationship between the complainant and accused and also by considering antecedent of accused and his carrier I pass the following:-
ORDER Accused is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of one month with 33 C.C.No.4950/2019 fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable u/s 67 of IT act 2000.
Further accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable u/s 67(A) of IT act 2000.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution :-
P.W.1, Kiran Kumar P.W.2, Preetham P.W.3, Vijaya Sarathi P.W.4, Saraswathi Parthasarathi P.W.5, Bhaskar P.W.6, R.Sathish P.W.7, Raghavendra.K P.W.8, M.D.Sharath P.W.9, Sushanth Shetty
List of exhibits marked for prosecution :-
Ex.P1, Seizure Panchanama Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW-1 Ex.P.1(b) Signature of PW-2 Ex.P.2, E-mail print out Ex.P.2(a), Signature of PW-2 Ex.P.3, CD Ex.P.4 & 5 Certificates u/s 65(B) Ex.P.4(a) & Signature of PW-3 34 C.C.No.4950/2019 Ex P.5(a) Ex.P.6, Emails (page No.35 to 58) Ex.P.7, Private complaint Ex.P.7(a), Signature of PW-4 Ex.P.8, E-mail sent Commissioner of Police Ex.P.8(a), Signature of PW-4 Ex.P.9, Copy of another formal complaint given by PW-4 to SP Ex.P.9(a), Signature of PW-4 Ex.P.10, Certificate u/s 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.10(a), Signature of PW-4 Ex.P.11, Copy of complaint PCR 405/2017 Ex.P.13, Notice issued by PW-7 to Yahoo India Private Limited Ex.P.13(a), Signature of PW-7 Ex.P.14, Voluntary statement of accused- Ex.P.14(a), Signature of PW-8 Ex.P.15, Preservation notice issued to accused by PW-8 Ex.P.15(a), Signature of PW-8 Ex.P.16, DVD Ex.P.17, Notice sent to bank to secure information about the email id Ex.P.18, Reply to the notice sent by bank Ex.P.19, KYC Form and Adhar card of accused Ex.P.20, Account opening form of accused Ex.P.21, Certificate issued by PW-8 in respect of above said emails Ex.P.22, Email conversation Ex.P.23, Canadian immigration Ex.P.24, VISA copy of accused Ex.P.25, Confirmation of the permanent residence Ex.P.26, Application made by the accused for Canadian immigration 35 C.C.No.4950/2019 Ex.P.27, Email conversation dated 20.11.2016 Ex.P.28, Email conversation and other emails Ex.P.29, 65B Certificate dated 23.12.2021 List of material object : M.O.1, DVD M.O.2, Pendrive (Wrongly numbered as M.O.1 in deposition of PW-3)
List of witnesses examined for defence:-
Ex.D.1, Certified copy of email dtd 07.12.2016 Ex.D.2, Copy of another email dtd.04.01.2017 Ex.D.3, Certified copy of another email dtd.
04.01.2017 Ex.D.4, Certified copy of chief examination affidavit filed in MC case No.16/18 Ex.D.5, Certified copy of email sent by her to one Suma Rao of Law office Ex.D.6, Copy of application u/s 25 of HM act filed in MC No.16/18 Ex.D.7, Certified copy of judgement in OS No.16/18 List of documents marked for defence:- NIL Digitally signed by ANAND S ANAND S KARIYAMMANAVAR KARIYAMMANAVAR Date: 2024.03.15 17:23:45 +0530 1 st Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.36 C.C.No.4950/2019
(Judgment pronounced in the Open Court) ORDER Acting Under Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C.
the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 67 and 67(A) of IT Act.
I ACMM, Bengaluru.
Heard the counsel for the accused and submitted that accused is working in a private company as a Manager if maximum sentence is 37 C.C.No.4950/2019 imposed the same will affect his carrier as well as his family members will suffer greater hardship thereby sought to impose minimum sentence.
2. Perused the materials available on record.
3. Complainant and accused are husband and wife and there are several matrimonial disputes are pending. By considering relationship between the complainant and accused and also by considering antecedent of accused and his carrier I pass the following:-
ORDER Accused is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of one month with fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable u/s 67 of IT act 2000.
Further accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and sentenced to pay fine of 38 C.C.No.4950/2019 Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable u/s 67(A) of IT act 2000.
I ACMM, Bengaluru