Bangalore District Court
(Rep. By Sr.App) vs Called C.W.1 Saritha Stating That He ... on 25 February, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE I st ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 25 th day of February 2021.
Present: Shri Bhat Manjunath Narayan,
B.Com., LL.B.
Ist Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
C.C.No.1922/2018
State by Jnanabharathi Police Station
Bengaluru. ....Complainant
(Rep. by Sr.APP)
Vs
Tangaraju s/o Balasubramani
aged 39 years, R/o No.421,
Rajahari Stores Apartment,
Kammanahalli main road,
Bannerghatta road,
Bengaluru. .....Accused
(Rep. by B.K.Manu & Associates)
1. Sl. No. of the case : CC No.1922 of 2018
2. The date of commission of : 23.01.2015
the ofence
3. Name of Complainant : Smt.Saritha Pandit
4. Name of the accused : As stated above
5. The ofences complained or : U/s 354C of IPC. R/w sec.67
proved of I.T. Act
C.C.No.1922/2018
2
6. Plea of the accused and his : Pleaded not guilty
examination
7. Date of Commencement of : -----
evidence
8. Date of Closing of : -----
prosecution evidence
9. Opinion of Judge : Accused not guilty
10. Date of Judgment : 25.02.2021
(Bhat Manjunath Narayan)
Ist Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.
C.C.No.1922/2018
3
JUDGMENT
That, Jannabharathi police have fled charge sheet against the accused alleging that he has committed an ofence punishable under Section 354C of IPC R/w sec.67 of Information Technology Act.
2. The brief facts and allegations made in the charge sheet are as under:
It is alleged in the charge sheet that C.W.1 Smt.Saritha and accused are known to each other and accused called C.W.1 Saritha stating that he will secure job to her. The prosecution alleges that on 22-03-2014 the accused took C.W.1 Saritha to his apartment bearing house No.317, foor No.4, Tirumala Lotus Apartment, Gottigere, Bannerghatta main road, Bengaluru. The prosecution alleges that the accused has asked sexual favour from C.W.1 Smt.Saritha and tried to take of her clothes. C.W.1 Saritha objected for the act of accused and she was trying to dress herself after the incident, the accused took objectionable/ private photos of C.W.1 Saritha. It is further alleged in the charge sheet that the accused has started sending messages to C.W.1 and also sent obscene/ private photos taken by him on 22-03-2014. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the accused by using e-mail ID namely [email protected] has sent obscene/private C.C.No.1922/2018 4 photos of C.W.1 to her husband by using his Samsung mobile phone. The prosecution alleges that when accused sent photos in the name of [email protected] to email ID of her husband, C.W.1 has fled frst information before Jnanabharathi police alleging that the accused has harassed her by taking her semi-nude photos & sent them through WhatsApp and e-mail to her and her husband.
3. As per frst information lodged by C.W.1 Saritha, a crime came to be registered at Jnanabharathi PS Cr.No.43/2015 for the ofence punishable under sec.354 C of IPC R/W sec.67 of Information Technology Act. The Investigating Ofcer has visited the spot and prepared the spot mahazar in the presence of C.W.2 Prathap R. and C.W.3 Aravind M.R.. The Investigating Ofcer has arrested the accused and has seized mobile phone from accused by preparing seizure mahazar in the presence of C.W.4 Srikanth and C.W.5 Gopalakrishna. The mobile seized was sent to forensic analysis and report is received from C.W.6 S.Neeru with respect to contents of mobile seized from the custody of the accused. After examining the report submitted by C.W.6 and statement of C.W.1, the Investigating ofcer has come to a conclusion that the accused is a person who has sent objectionable obscene semi-nude photos of C.C.No.1922/2018 5 C.W.1 from [email protected] to e-mail ID of husband of C.W.1 [email protected] . Therefore, the Investigating Ofcer come to a conclusion that the accused has committed an ofence of voyeurism by taking semi-nude photos and thereby committed an ofence punishable under section 354C of IPC R/w sec.67 of Information Technology Act.
4. After fling of charge sheet, cognizance for the ofence punishable under section 354C of IPC R/w sec.67 of Information Technology Act is taken against the accused. The accused was arrested during crime stage and was released on bail. After fling of charge sheet, his presence is secured and copy of the charge sheet is supplied to the accused as required under sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
5. Charge for the ofence punishable under section 354C of IPC R/w sec.67 of Information Technology Act is framed. Accused pleaded innocence and as such prosecution is directed to adduce oral and documentary evidence to prove the guilt of the accused.
6. In order to secure presence of witnesses summons , NBWs & proclamations were issued to the prosecution witnesses. But in-spite of issuance of C.C.No.1922/2018 6 summons, NBWs, proclamation, none of the prosecution witnesses have appeared and examined before this court. Even C.W.1 was recalled by fling application under sec.311 of cr.P.C. and thereafter also C.W.1 failed to appear before this court and deposed as per charge sheet allegations.
7. Since none of the prosecution witnesses are examined, statement of accused as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with. The accused has not produced any oral or documentary evidence in support of his contention.
8. On the basis of charge sheet allegation, the following points arose for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 22-
03-2014 in his house, accused has taken semi-nude photos of CW-1 and has sent objectionable/private semi-
nude photos to her husband from
[email protected] to
[email protected] and also to the WhatsApp number of C.W.1 Saritha and thereby committed an ofence punishable under Section 354C of IPC R/w sec.67 of Information Technology Act?
2. What order ?
C.C.No.1922/2018 7
9. Heard Counsel appearing for the accused and learned Sr.APP. and my fndings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : As per fnal order, for the
following:
REASONS
Point No.1 :-
10. In this case the prosecution alleges that the accused by using [email protected] has sent semi-
nude photos of C.W.1 to her husband and made vulgar comments and also sent vulgar messages through e-
mail. In order to prove the allegations, the prosecution has failed to secure the witnesses. C.W.1 victim Saritha is not examined to say that the accused used to sent vulgar messages and sent her private photos to her husband and to herself. The oral evidence is not at all adduced and as such it cannot be said from the oral evidence prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused. I have perused the documents produced by the C.C.No.1922/2018 8 prosecution. The prosecution has produced documents with respect to e-mail sent from [email protected] to [email protected] . The prosecution is relying upon the opinion given by the expert C.W.6 to link [email protected] to accused. However, the prosecution has not produced documents to show the [email protected] is created by accused from the service provider hotmail.com. It is only case of the prosecution that in the mobile recovered from the accused some deleted messages were recovered by C.W.6 expert, wherein it is said that messages were sent by using e-mail ID naveenmms@hotmail. To prove this C.W.6 S.Neeru is not examined. When forensic expert who has given report is not examined, this court cannot rely upon the report to say that the accused is the person who has sent semi-nude private photos of C.W.1 to her husband.
This being the case, the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufcient to hold that the accused has used e-mail ID [email protected]. Apart from this the prosecution has C.C.No.1922/2018 9 also not produced any document to show [email protected] is belonging to the husband of C.W.1 Therefore, in my opinion from the available materials on record, the prosecution is unable to prove the guilt of the accused for the ofence punishable under sec.354C of IPC R/w sec.67 of Information Technology Act. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
Point No.3: -
11. In view of discussion and conclusion arrived at point No.1, accused is entitled to be acquitted. Hence I proceed to pass following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the ofence punishable under Section 354C of IPC R/w section 67 of Information Technology Act.
The bail and surety bond of the accused stand canceled.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, revised and then corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 25 th day of February 2021).
(Bhat Manjunath Narayan) I Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.
st C.C.No.1922/2018 10 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution :- NIL List of exhibits marked for prosecution :-NIL List of witnesses examined for defence:- NIL List of documents marked for defence:- NIL (Bhat Manjunath Narayan) Ist Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.