Bangalore District Court
Vedapriya vs Sathisha Alias Sathisha on 1 August, 2024
KABC030743162022
Presented on : 16-09-2022
Registered on : 16-09-2022
Decided on : 01-08-2024
Duration : 1 years, 10 months, 16 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU
PRESENT
SMT.LATHA .J, B.COM, LL.B.,
XXXII Addl.C.J.M, Bengaluru
Dated this the 01st day of August 2024
Criminal Case No.29606 of 2022
Complainant : The State through
Police Inspector,
Nandini Layout Police Station
( By Asst. Public Prosecutor )
--- V/s ---
Accused : Satisha @ Satisha,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at.No.196, 3rd cross,
Vidhana Soudha Layout,
Laggere, Bengaluru.
(Accused Rept. By-B.K.Ramesh..Adv.,)
Date of commencement of : 29.03.2021
offence
Date of report of offence : 02.04.2021
Arrest of the Accused : ---
2
C.C.29606/2022
Name of the Informant : Smt.VedaPriya
Date of commencement of : 11.07.2024
recording evidence
Date of closing of evidence : 11.07.2024
Offences complained of : U/Sec.354C of IPC and
Sec. 66(E) OF I.T.Act
2008
Opinion of the Judge : Accused is found not
guilty
Date of Judgment : 01-08-2024
XXXII Addl.C.J.M
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Nandini Layout P.S has submitted the Charge Sheet against the accused for the offences punishable Under Sec.354C of IPC and Sec. 66(E) of I.T.Act 2008.
2. The brief facts of the Prosecution case are as follows:
That on 29.03.2021 at about 06.00 A.M, while C.W.1 was having bath in the bathroom of her house situated at No.7, 2 nd floor, 2nd cross, Vidhana Soudha Layout, Laggere, Nandini Layout the accused peeped into the said bathroom by standing of the steps of the staircase next to the bathroom and video graphed the said private act of C.W.1 in his 3 C.C.29606/2022 MI mobile phone camera by violating the privacy of C.W.1 and thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable U/s 354C of IPC and Sec. 66(E) of I.T.Act 2008.
3. On the basis of the Statement of CW-1, the Nandini Layout Police have registered a case under Crime No.103/2021 for the offences punishable U/s 354C of IPC and Sec. 66(E) of I.T.Act 2008 against the accused and submitted the FIR before the court. Thereafter the investigating officer visited the spot and drawn the spot mahazar and recorded the statement of witnesses on completion of the investigation, the Charge Sheet has been filed against the accused for the offences punishable Under Sec.354C of IPC and Sec. 66(E) OF I.T.Act 2008. On the receipt of the police report, this court has taken cognizance for the said offences.
4. On the appearance of the accused, the accused surrendered before the court and was released on bail. The copies of prosecution papers were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both the parties, the charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 354C of IPC and Sec. 66(E) of I.T.Act 2008 and read over to him. The accused pleaded not 4 C.C.29606/2022 guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the matter was posted for evidence.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has got examined one witness as PW-1, out of the total charge sheet witnesses as CW-1 to 17 and got marked two documents as Ex.P1 and P 2. Since PW-1 who is the material witness, turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and the presence of the rest of the material witnesses could not be secured and since there is no incriminating evidence against the accused from the material witnesses, no purpose would be served by issuing summons to rest of the witnesses. Hence, the evidence of the rest of the witnesses is dropped by rejecting the prayer of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. The statement of the accused as required Under Sec.313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C was dispensed with as there were no incriminating circumstances in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
6. I have heard the arguments addressed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned advocate for the accused. 5
C.C.29606/2022
7. On going through the facts and circumstances of the prosecution case, the following points would arise for my consideration :
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 29.03.2021 at about 06.00 A.M, while C.W.1 was having bath in the bathroom of her house situated at No.7, 2nd floor, 2nd cross, Vidhana Soudha Layout, Laggere, Nandini Layout the accused peeped into the said bathroom by standing of the steps of the staircase next to the bathroom and video graphed the said private act of C.W.1 and thereby the accused has committed the offence of "voyeurism" punishable U/s 354C of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the same date, place and time the accused made a video of C.W.1 while she was having bath and captured her private act in his MI mobile phone camera by violating the privacy of C.W.1 and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 66E of Information Technology Act?
3. What Order ?6
C.C.29606/2022
8. My findings to the above Points are as under:
Point No.1 and 2 : In the Negative.
Point No.3 : As per final order, For the following: -
REASONS
9. Points No.1 and 2:- As these points are interlinked with each other and also similar evidence is led on all these points, I have taken all these points together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and discussion.
10. It is the allegation that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Section 354C of IPC and Sec. 66(E) of I.T.Act 2008.
11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has got examined the informant of crime/C.W.1 by the name Vedapriya as P.W.1.
Out of the documents marked for the prosecution Ex.P1 is the complaint and Ex.P2 is the mahazar.
12. In support of the case of prosecution, C.W.1-VedaPriya is examined as P.W.1. This witness deposed that she does not know the accused. The accused has not stared at her with bad intention 7 C.C.29606/2022 and did not make a video of her while she was having bath. She has not lodged complaint before the police and police took her signatures on the blank paper, but she does not know the contents of complaint which is at Ex.P.1 and police have not drawn mahazar in her presence and she does not know the contents of mahazar at Ex.P.2.
This witness was treated as hostile witness by the Learned Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor and cross examined at length. In the cross examination also nothing worth could be elicited from her mouth to support the case of the prosecution and she denied the suggestion that she has compromised the matter with the accused.
13. Now the question which arises before the court is whether the evidence placed on record is sufficient to establish the case of the prosecution. As I have above stated, the prime witness/ P.W.1 fully turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. After appreciating the evidence placed on record, it is clear that the evidence of P.W.1 is not inspiring confidence to act upon and to hold that the accused has committed the alleged offences.
14. Now on overall perusal of the evidence and prosecution witnesses as complainant/PW-1 is the material witness has not 8 C.C.29606/2022 supported the case of the prosecution. PW-1 during the course of her evidence has not at all stated in respect of the acts of accused in peeping and seeing her while she was having bath and recording the same in his mobile and she has denied the involvement of the accused and at the out set she has denied the entire case of the prosecution.
15. However, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prays to issue summons to other witnesses. Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case, this court was of the opinion that even if other witnesses were examined, it would be a futile exercise and no lawful purpose would have been served. As such examination of the prosecution witnesses only for the purpose of completing the procedural aspect will not serve any judicial purpose and it is sheer waste of the precious time of the court. Therefore, the prayer of the learned APP to issue summons to other witnesses was rejected. At this stage this court relied upon judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1996 (3) Crimes 84 Sathish Mehra V/s Delhi Administration & another: wherein at page No.13 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
9
C.C.29606/2022 "When the judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date".
The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case is applicable in this case also. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, the above Point No.1 and 2 are answered in the 'NEGATIVE'.
16. Point No.3: - In view of the findings of point No.1 and 2, this court proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused is acquitted of the offence punishable U/Sec. 354C of IPC and Sec. 66(E) OF I.T.Act 2008 .
Bail bonds of the accused and Surety bonds shall stand canceled.
10
C.C.29606/2022 The bail bond executed U/s 437(A) of Cr.P.C. shall be continued.
The MI mobile phone seized from the accused and reported in P.F.No.54/2021 of Nandini Layout PS is ordered to be returned to the accused after deleting all the contents in the mobile, after lapse of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer online and typed by her, judgment corrected and signed by me, then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 01st day of August, 2024).
(Latha. J) XXXII Addl.C.J.M, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of the Witnesses examined by the Prosecution:
PW-1 Vedapriya C.W.1 11.07.2024 List of the Documents exhibited for the Prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW-1 Ex.P2 : Mahazar Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW-1
List of the MOs marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
--Nil--
List of the Witnesses examined for defence:
--Nil--11
C.C.29606/2022 List of the Documents exhibited for defence:
--Nil--
List of the MOs marked on behalf of Defence:
--Nil-- Digitally
signed by
LATHA LATHA
Date:
J
J 2024.08.03
12:19:54
+0530
(Latha. J)
XXXII Addl.C.J.M,
Bengaluru