Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs Somkanya Chandreyee Dass on 7 November, 2025

           DLND010042342022                                          Page 1 of 83
           State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das
           SC No. 213/2022
           FIR No. 142/2022
           PS Vasant Kunj North
           Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act
         IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05
        NEW DELHI DISTRICT : PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW
                              DELHI

                                     State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das
                                                           SC No. 213/2022
                                                          FIR No. 142/2022
                                                    PS Vasant Kunj North
                                 Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act


In the matter of :-

State
                                   ...(through Sh. Mukul Kumar, Addl. PP)

Vs.

Som Kanya Chandreyee Das
D/o Sh. Chandra Kumar Das
R/o P-2, Bank Colony,
Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road,
Purba Barisha,
South 24 Pargana, Kolkata, Behala,
West Bengal
                                                             ....accused
                             (Represented by Sh. R.K. Wadhwa, Advocate)

              Complainant Represented by Sh Narender Singh, Advocate


   Date of institution                    :      13.05.2022
   Date when Judgment reserved            :      06.10.2025
   Date of Judgment                       :      04.12.2025
   Final decision                         :      Accused Acquitted
 JUDGMENT:

-

State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act

1. Accused Somkanya Chandreyee Das is before the Court facing charge under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act as from 21.04.2020 to 30.04.2020, it is alleged that a she sent several emails to the complainant and also called him on his mobile phone and intentionally insulted / intimidated the complainant (a member of SC community) by calling and writing him as 'lower breed', 'scheduled caste', 'mad dog' etc and also addressed him 'Chamar'.

2. In view of aforesaid allegations, FIR No.142/22 was lodged at PS Vasant Kunj North on 17.03.2022. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 13.05.2022. Charge was framed on 02.04.2024 for offence 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act, which reads as under:-

"It is alleged that between 21.04.2020 and 30.04.2020, you sent several emails to the complainant Sushanta Kumar Mandal and also called him on his mobile phone and you intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate Sushanta Kumar Mandal, a member of SC Community by calling and writing to him as "lower breed, scheduled caste, mad dog etc. and also addressing the complinant as Chamar" and you there by committed an offence punishable under section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act within my cognizance."

3. Deposition of Prosecution Witnesses The prosecution examined twelve witnesses to substantiate its case. Below is a brief summary of their depositions:

4. PW-1: SUSHANTA KUMAR MANDAL (COMPLAINANT) 1 1 Complainant/Victim, Dates of Examination: - 28.08.2024 (Examination-in-Chief commenced) - 27.02.2024 (Recalled for further Examination-in-Chief) - 01.03.2025 (Cross-

State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act 4.1. The witness deposed that he was a paid member of the matrimonial website Shaadi.com. As part of his contract with the company, Shaadi.com appointed Bappa Ghoshal as his Relationship Manager, whose responsibility was to scan through the profile database to identify suitable matrimonial matches.

4.2. During December 2019 or January 2020, Bappa Ghoshal initiated communication with a prospect whose profile name appeared on Shaadi.com as "Ms. Emon Motrayee Datta Das". When the Relationship Manager shared this profile with the witness, he found it unsuitable and instructed his Relationship Manager not to follow up on this profile. 4.3. On 30.01.2020 late at night, the witness received three phone calls from a number whose Truecaller ID displayed the name "Emon Motrayee Datta Das". Recognizing this as the same profile he had rejected, he did not pick up any of these calls. Subsequently, on 10.02.2020, Ms Emon sent an email to his Relationship Manager expressing her keenness to proceed with matrimonial dialogue, stating she was open to relocating to Delhi after marriage. On 03.03.2020, she sent another email to the Relationship Manager requesting the witness's personal email ID to establish direct communication. Neither the witness nor his Relationship Manager responded to these emails.

4.4. The witness testified that on 21.04.2020, Ms Emon sent a highly derogatory and humiliating email abusing him as "low breed schedule caste". On 22.04.2020, she sent another derogatory email filled with filthy language, again calling him "schedule caste" along with other humiliating Examination) DLND010042342022 Page 4 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act terms. On 29.04.2020, she sent three consecutive emails filled with abusive language, humiliating him as "schedule caste" and accusing the Government of India of giving him a "license of schedule caste to harass her and other vulnerable women".

4.5. The witness deposed that all these emails were sent not only to him and Mr. Bappa but also to multiple email groups of Shaadi.com, with each group consisting of 25-30 employees. In total, across the five emails, she abused him by calling him "schedule caste" 19 times and called him "infertile and impotent" 4 times. She demanded his sex and health certificates and psychological evaluation certificates from competent doctors multiple times. Throughout this correspondence, Ms Emon was hiding her true identity, signing emails merely as "Shadi profile". 4.6. The witness further testified that in June 2020, he was summoned to Delhi Police Women Crime Cell where the accused had lodged a false complaint against him. When he demanded evidence, the lady police officer could not provide any and he was allowed to leave. On 02.09.2020, he was again harassed by Calcutta Cyber Crime Department, Lal Bazar, based on another false complaint lodged by the accused. It was only when called by Delhi Police Women Crime Cell that he learned the real name of Ms Emon was Somkanya Chandrayee Dass.

4.7. The witness stated he lodged a police complaint on 16.06.2020 with the Delhi Police Commissioner and later moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.PC to file an FIR against the accused. Based on his application, the court advised the ACP to investigate and proceed with his request. Delhi Police forwarded his complaint to their Legal Cell, which DLND010042342022 Page 5 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act confirmed that the harassment and derogatory emails constituted a fit case for FIR under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Consequently, Delhi Police filed FIR No. 142/2022 dated 17.03.2022 against Somkanya Chandrayee Dass.

4.8. In deposition dated 27.02.2024, the witness confirmed he was using mobile number 9810223532 at the relevant time. He testified that Bappa Ghoshal was his relationship manager who established initial contact with prospects on his behalf. The witness never called the accused on her mobile nor sent any email to her. After receiving emails on 10.02.2020 and 06.03.2020 from the accused showing interest in matrimonial dialogue, there was no communication from the witness or Bappa's side. 4.9. Between 21.04.2020 and 29.04.2020, the accused sent five emails to his email ID ([email protected]) from the email ID [email protected], simultaneously sending these to multiple groups at Shaadi.com, each consisting of 40-50 people. In these emails, the accused called him "lower caste of Indian origin," "lower breed dog,"

"mandal-a confirmed scheduled caste," and "a Quota person" . She abused the Government of India for giving him "Scheduled Caste license to harass herand acquire and enjoy the companionship of women". In the email dated 22.04.2020, she demanded his psychiatric certificate ten times and called him "mentally totally disturbed," stating he was undergoing mental treatment.

4.10. On 30.04.2020 and 01.05.2020, the witness received six calls from two different numbers. He picked up one call on 30.04.2020 at 11:25 am, and a lady on the other side used abusive words stating "how dare you DLND010042342022 Page 6 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act refuse my proposal" and called him "a scheduled caste" . During police investigation, it was discovered that those two numbers were allocated to the accused's father .

4.11. The witness identified the accused as present in court on 27.02.2024. He testified that on 16.06.2020, he lodged a complaint with the Police Commissioner for FIR registration under SC/ST Act. On 23.06.2020, he filed an application in Patiala House Court for FIR registration. The FIR bearing No. 142/2022 was registered on 17.03.2022 against the accused, and the IO recorded his statement.

4.12. Documents Exhibited

a) Ex.PW-1/A: Complaint signed by witness at point A

b) Ex.PW1/B: Notice under Section 91 Cr.PC received on 30.03.2022, signed at point A

c) Ex.PW1/C: Seizure memo of photocopies of screenshot, emails, etc.

d) Ex.PW1/D: Caste certificate (OSR)

e) Ex.PWI/E: Email dated 22.04.2020 signed at point A

f) Ex.PW1/F: Email dated 29.04.2020 signed at point A

g) Ex.PW1/G: Email dated 21.04.2020 signed at point A

h) Ex.PW1/H: Photocopy of Truecaller screenshot reflecting accused's identity signed at point A

i) Ex.PW1/I: Notice to produce caste certificate signed at point A

j) Ex.PW1/J: Details of membership with Shadi.com

k) Ex.PW1/K: FIR bearing witness's signature at Point A

l) Mark PW-1/DA: Caste Certificate issued by State of West DLND010042342022 Page 7 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act Bengal Cross-Examination 4.13. During cross-examination, the witness stated he is an Engineer in Electronic Communication with an MBA in Marketing. His date of birth is 10.05.1967. His first marriage was solemnized in 2000 and he was divorced after about one year of marriage. He could not remember the exact date when he registered on Shaadi.com, stating it was many years ago. He was a paid member with annual subscription amounts varying between Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-, though he did not remember exactly.

4.14. The witness confirmed that Mr. Bappa Ghoshal was an employee of Shaadi.com deputed as his relationship manager to manage his profile, and he had a good relationship with him. Prior to the present case, Mr. Bappa Ghoshal had referred various other matrimonial proposals to him . He never had direct contact or interaction with any proposed matrimonial match initially.

4.15. The witness testified he belongs to Scheduled Caste (Namasudra). His original caste certificate was not seized by the investigating agency. The certificate was issued by the State of West Bengal, and when he moved to Delhi with his father, it was re-issued from Delhi Government. His date of birth is not mentioned on the caste certificate Ex.PW-1/D, which he explained was perhaps the standard format. He denied the suggestion that the certificates were not issued from Government Department and were fabricated and manipulated. 4.16. When questioned about his instructions to Bappa Ghoshal regarding the accused's profile, the witness clarified that he did not straightaway tell DLND010042342022 Page 8 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act Mr. Bappa Ghoshal not to follow up the profile at the same time the profile was shared. He could not recall after how many days he conveyed these instructions, which were communicated verbally over telephone. 4.17. The witness confirmed that his mobile phone and laptop were not seized by police during investigation. He stated he had no direct interaction with the accused, never called her, and never sent her any email. He confirmed that the relationship manager used to share emails or other communication with the other party during the initial stage. 4.18. For the first time, the accused called him three times on 30.01.2020, and he did not pick up any of these calls. He had not met the accused personally until 30.01.2020. For the first time on 30.04.2020 and 01.05.2020, he received six phone calls from two different mobile numbers. He could discern that the two mobile numbers were somehow related to the accused as prior to that he had received emails from the accused hurling caste-based slurs.

4.19. The witness denied the suggestion that he never received any emails or phone calls from the accused and that all were fabricated by him. In July 2020, for the first time he came to know that the accused's name was Somkanya Chandreyee Dass. He denied the suggestion that this was a false case filed against the accused because she had rejected his marriage proposal. He denied suggestions that he does not belong to Scheduled Caste, that certificates are fabricated and manipulated, and that he, being an Electronic and Telecom Engineer with good experience, fabricated emails on his own . He denied deposing falsely.

State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act

5. PW-2: SI KAVITA2 5.1. The witness deposed that on 02.04.2022, she was posted at PS R.K. Puram and joined the investigation of the present case along with the Investigating Officer. The IO had called the complainant for recording his statement. During the recording of statement under Section 161 Cr.PC, she recorded the proceedings on the mobile phone of the IO. The complainant handed over a photocopy of his caste certificate, emails, copies of call logs, and some other documents relating to the accused, which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C signed by her at point B. The IO recorded her statement.

5.2. On 11.05.2022, she again joined the investigation of the present case along with the IO. An application had been moved by the IO in Patiala House Court, and she accompanied the IO. The accused was arrested after taking formal permission of the court vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A signed by her at point A. The accused was personally searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW2/B signed by her at point A. The accused was interrogated and her disclosure statement was recorded as Ex.PW2/C signed by her at point A. The IO recorded her statement in the PS. 5.3. When recalled on 03.04.2025, the witness identified accused Somkanya Chandreyer Dass as present in Court.

5.4. Documents Exhibited

a) Ex.PW1/C: Seizure memo signed by witness at point B 2 Designation: Sub-Inspector. Dates of Examination: - 28.08.2024 (Examination-in-Chief commenced) - 03.04.2025 (Recalled for further Examination-in-Chief and Cross- Examination) DLND010042342022 Page 10 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act

b) Ex.PW2/A: Arrest memo of accused signed by witness at point A

c) Ex.PW2/B: Personal search memo of accused signed by witness at point A

d) Ex.PW2/C: Disclosure statement of accused signed by witness at point A Cross-Examination 5.5. The witness testified she joined Delhi Police in 2019. On 02.04.2022, she was directed by the then ACP Sh. Satbir Singh to join the investigation of the case registered in PS Vasant Kunj North while she was posted in PS R.K.Puram. The instructions to join the investigation were given verbally by the ACP. She could not exactly remember the time but stated it was probably given at about 11 am on 02.04.2022. At that time she was in PS R.K.Puram. The instructions were given by the ACP to SHO R.K.Puram Ms. Alpana Sharma, who conveyed them to her. 5.6. At around 1:00 pm, she met the ACP in his office at R.K.Puram. She had not made any entry of her departure from the PS to meet the ACP in any roznamcha or other document. She remained with the ACP in investigation until about 4 pm in his office. She did not make any entry of her arrival back to PS R.K. Puram in any roznamcha or official document/register. Throughout this period of joining the investigation with the ACP, no other police officials accompanied her. 5.7. When she entered the ACP's office, the complainant was also present. Later she learned the complainant's name was Mr. Sushant Kumar Mandal. During this investigation period, the complainant made his DLND010042342022 Page 11 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act statement to the ACP, which was videographed by her on the official mobile phone of the ACP. During investigation, the complainant produced few documents to the ACP. She could not say whether the handing over of documents got videographed.

5.8. The documents given by the complainant were 11 in total. She was not aware of the details and contents of those documents, but they were :

the complainant's caste certificate, five photocopies of email conversation (though she did not know between whom), three copies of call logs (she did not know the details as to between whom), one copy of Adhar Card and Voter I-card of some lady Motryee Dass.

5.9. On 11.05.2022, she again joined the investigation along with the ACP/IO. She left PS R.K.Puram at around 12 noon and reached Patiala House Court at 12:25 pm. She met the ACP and one other lady police official whose name she did not remember. On that day also, she did not make any entry in any roznamcha of PS R.K.Puram as the information to join investigation was intimated by the SHO R.K.Puram, on whose instructions she joined the investigation. She did not make any entry in any roznamcha or register of her arrival in the PS, stating it was the duty of the ACP as he was the IO of the case.

5.10. Between 02.04.2022 and 11.05.2022, she, along with SI Hemant (also posted in PS R.K.Puram) and one lady Ct. whose name she did not remember, visited the accused's house at Calcutta. She could not remember the exact date of the Calcutta visit. She stated she got the DD entry made as permission was given by the ACP to visit the accused's house, but she did not remember the exact DD number. They left Delhi for DLND010042342022 Page 12 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act Calcutta at about 7:00 pm but she did not remember the date or train name, and they reached Calcutta around 8-9 am next day. She did not remember the date.

5.11. After reaching Calcutta, they went to a local PS, though she was not aware which PS or where it was located. She did not remember the DD number made in that PS. From the PS, they reached the accused's house at about 11:30-12:00 pm. She did not know whether there were instructions from senior officials to apprehend the accused from Calcutta, as it was only in SI Hemant's knowledge. She did not remember on which date the accused's parents were directed to appear before the IO in Delhi. 5.12. She did not know when they reached Delhi from Calcutta or by which train. After reaching Delhi, she went to the PS but did not make any entry of her arrival in PS R.K.Puram, stating the entry might have been made by SI Hemant. She confirmed there is no copy of the notice purportedly given to the accused's parents at Calcutta on record. 5.13. The witness denied suggestions that she had not joined investigation with the ACP on any mentioned dates, that she had not visited Calcutta at the accused's house, that no notice was given to the accused's parents, and that she was an interested witness being a police official working under instructions of senior officials. She denied that a false case was registered against the accused in connivance with the complainant and on instructions of senior police officials.

6. PW-3: BAPPA GHOSAL3 3 Designation: Sr. Tele Sales Advisor at Star Health Insurance Co.; formerly Select Shadi Advisor at Shadi.com (May 2018 to October 2020) Date of Examination: 01.04.2025 DLND010042342022 Page 13 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act

6.1. The witness deposed that he belongs to Brahmin caste. He worked at Shadi.com as a Select Shadi Advisor from May 2018 to October 2020. His role was as a Service Provider to members who took paid membership at Shadi.com.

6.2. He was working on the profile of Mr. Sushant Kr. Mandal, whose Shadi.com ID was SH0113129. A lady with Shadi.com ID SH99787714 (whose ID number he could not remember initially but confirmed after going through documents) had shown interest in Mr. Sushant Kr. Mandal's profile at the Shadi.com platform. He informed Mr. Sushant Kr. Mandal about this and was asked to brief the lady about his profile. 6.3. He made a call to the lady on the number provided on Shadi.com . Her parents picked up the call, and he briefed all details of Sushant Kr. Mandal's profile to them. The lady's parents did not disclose their caste status. He asked them about relocation from West Bengal to Delhi after marriage. Thereafter, he informed Mr. Sushant Kr. Mandal that the lady's parents wanted to talk to him directly. Mr. Mandal asked him not to follow the matter.

6.4. In March-April 2020, some mails from the lady's ID were received on the registered email ID of Mr. Sushant Kr. Mandal, in which some caste remarks were made by the lady, though he did not remember the exact contents. When the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor sought permission to put leading questions regarding email IDs, the court allowed it. The witness confirmed that the email IDs [email protected] and [email protected] belonged to Mr. Sushant Kr. Mandal, and caste remarks were sent by the lady to these emails in following words:-

State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act "Q: I put it to you that the email IDs i.e., [email protected] and [email protected] belonged to Mr. Sushant Kumar Mandal. Ans: Yes. These are the emails of Mr. Sushant Kumar. Mandal and on these emails caste remarks were sent by the said lady."

Cross-Examination 6.5. The witness confirmed he worked in Shadi.com from May 2018 till October 2020. He did not have details of when Mr. Sushant Kr. Mandal became a paid member. He did not know whether he was a member since 2008-2009, stating it was not within his domain to enquire about membership commencement status, and he could neither affirm nor deny whether he was a member since 2008-2009. Paid member subscription is on a three-month basis. He did not know the amount charged by the company but estimated it must be around Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 16,000/- for three months.

6.6. He could not recollect the number of total profiles shared with Mr. S.K. Mandal during his tenure, though usually one or two profiles were shared per week. Regarding profiles he shared with Mr. Mandal as a paid member, talks between them were routed through him only. However, regarding conversation, the paid member could also evince interest in general profiles from their database and converse with each other. Mr. S.K. Mandal used to instruct him to speak with the prospect/profiles, intimate about his profile, and then revert once the prospect/profile was willing to talk to him. Mr. Mandal stated his profile should first be vetted/considered by the opposite party.

6.7. The witness testified that Mr. Mandal, in his presence, never sent any email or had telephonic conversation with the lady having the profile DLND010042342022 Page 15 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act Emon Motrayee Dutta Dass. The profile email ID/mobile number was verified by Shadi.com at the time of creation of the Shadi ID. He did not know the nature of verification carried out by Shadi.com but stated it was systemic verification as part of due diligence. No document of verification was attached with the file, stating it must be with the company. 6.8. He could not recollect the phone number or email ID with whom he had telephonic conversation and the IP address of the email ID from where alleged mails came, stating it must be in the documents. Police had not seized any electronic device from him including phone, laptop, or other device. To his knowledge, no seizure of any electronic device was carried out from Mr. S.K. Mandal in his presence. As to his knowledge, no mobile, laptop, or other electronic device of the company were seized. 6.9. He met the accused present in Court for the first time and had not met her before. He also stated that in the profile ID her name was Emon Motrayee Dutta Dass. He had not met the lady personally; however, details and conversation took place through her mobile phone and email ID. 6.10. When asked whether he could say with precision that he conversed with the accused present in Court/her parents as they used to deal through registered mobile number/email, he responded that the profile is generated/registered on Shadi.com with IDs, and mobile number and email are also registered referring to the prospect and his/her relatives (parents or near relatives). On that basis, he could say he had interacted with the parents and the lady in that profile.

6.11. He denied suggestions that when the lady Somkanya Chandreyer Dass refused to marry the accused, he agreed to join Mr. Sushant Kr.

State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act Mandal at his instance to make a false case to harass her. He denied that no such mails or conversation took place as stated by him between him and the accused. He denied that no such filthy mails as alleged were ever sent by the accused to him, Shadi.com, or Mr. Sushant Kr. Mandal. He denied that a false case was made against the accused and that the accused was falsely implicated at the behest of Mr. Sushant Kr. Mandal.

7. PW-4: WCT. RINKI4 7.1. The witness deposed that on 11.05.2022, she was posted as WCt. at PS R.K.Puram. On that day, she was called by the ACP/IO of the present case to reach Patiala House Court where accused Somkanya Chandreyer Dass was present as she had surrendered before the Court . After enquiry, the IO arrested her. Thereafter, the witness took the accused to Safdarjung Hospital for medical examination. Her medical examination was conducted vide MLC No. MRL-21-0065290 . After medical examination, the accused was sent to Tihar Jail. The IO recorded her statement. 7.2. The witness identified accused Somkanya Chandreyee Dass as present in Court.

7.3. No documents were specifically exhibited by this witness, though MLC No. MRL-21-0065290 was referenced.

Cross-Examination 7.4. The witness testified she joined as Ct. in Delhi Police in 2018. On 11.05.2022, her working hours were 8:00 am to 8:00 pm. There is no document on record to show that she was asked by the IO to join the 4 Designation: Woman Constable No. 10378/PCR, Date of Examination: 03.04.2025 DLND010042342022 Page 17 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act investigation. She denied suggestions that she had not joined investigation proceedings and that she was deposing falsely on IO's instructions.

8. PW-5: AJAY KUMAR5 8.1. The witness deposed that on 07.04.2022, he was posted as Nodal Officer at Bharti Airtel Ltd. On that day, a notice under Section 92 Cr.PC was received for providing CDR and CAF for mobile numbers 7044298943 (Chandra Kumar Dass) and 9810223532 (Sushant Kumar Mandal). In reply to the notice, he provided the CAF and CDR of the above mobile numbers from 15.03.2022 to 07.04.2022 along with certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act on 14.04.2022. 8.2. Documents Exhibited

a) Ex. PW-5/A (colly. running into 25 pages): Reply to notice, CAF, CDR and certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, bearing witness's signatures and stamp at point A on each page (objected to by defense counsel on basis of admissibility) 8.3. Cross-Examination The witness testified he has been working in Bharti Airtel Ltd. as Nodal Officer since 2007. When shown the certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act filed by him, he acknowledged he had not mentioned details and description of the device from which documents being Ex. PW-5/A originated/were reproduced. The document CAF of mobile number 7044298943 is a photocopy, though it is attested and signed by him. The 5 Designation: Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., 224, Okhla, Phase-3, New Delhi, Date of Examination: 03.04.2025.

State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act document CAF of mobile number 9810223532 is an e-KYC form.

9. PW-6: MANINDER SINGH6 9.1. The witness deposed that on 13.04.2022, he was posted as Nodal Officer at Vodafone Idea Ltd. On that day, on the IO's notice, he provided the CDR and CAF of mobile number 8017419571 which was in the name of accused Somkanya Chandreyee Das for the period 15.03.2022 to 10.04.2022. The IO asked to provide CDR of the mobile number from 30.01.2020 to 01.05.2020 but they could not provide for that period as it was not available since one year had lapsed.

9.2. On the day of testimony, he brought the CDR and CAF of mobile number 8017419571 along with eKYC in the name of Somkanya Chandreyee Das for the period 15.03.2022 to 10.04.2022 along with certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. The above mobile number was registered in the name of Smt. Maiteryi Das from 30.01.2020 to 01.05.2020. Thereafter, the mobile number was transferred in the name of accused Somkanya Chandreyee Das from 08.01.2022. 9.3. Documents Exhibited

a) Ex.PW6/A (Colly.-running into 08 pages): CDR, CAF, eKYC and certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, bearing witness's signatures and stamp at Point A on each page (objected to by defense counsel on ground of admissibility based on certificate under Section 65-B).

Cross-Examination 6 Designation: Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd., Office at A-26/5, Mohan Co- operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Delhi, Date of Examination: 04.04.2025.

State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act 9.4. The witness testified he had no personal knowledge of the present case. Police did not seize any device or electronic equipment like laptop, server, mobile phone, etc. from him or from Vodafone Idea Ltd. When shown the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act being part of Ex.PW6/A (Colly.), the witness stated there is no detail/description of any electronic device/equipment mentioned from which documents Ex.PW6/A (Colly.) originated/were reproduced, though the word 'server/system' is mentioned in the certificate. 9.5. He denied that he is not an employee posted as Nodal Officer at Vodafone Idea Ltd. He denied that documents Ex.PW6/A (Colly.) are forged and fabricated records created at the IO's instance. He denied deposing falsely at the IO's instance.

10. PW-7: MS. USHA VINOD KUMAR7 10.1. The witness deposed that in March 2022 (exact date not remembered), she received a notice under Section 91 Cr.PC from the SHO, PS Vasant Kunj or Vasant Vihar seeking profile details of two Shaadi.com members. The notice contained profile IDs of the victim and complainant. The SHO had also asked to share employee details of Bappa Ghosal. Subsequently, she shared available profile details of the two Shaadi.com members and details of Bappa Ghosal.

10.2. On 19.04.2022, she received a second notice seeking emails sent from a particular email ID to Shaadi.com and profile details of one profile ID of a Shaadi.com member. On 25.04.2022, she submitted available 7 Designation: Director (Legal and Secretarial) of People Interactive India Pvt. Ltd. (shaadi.com) Date of Examination: 13.05.2025, Detailed Examination-in-Chief.

State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act documents to Police. She also supplied Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding documents paging 51 to 71. 10.3. She deposed that document paginated as 51 was supplied by her to IO and is an email dated 22.04.2020 sent from email ID [email protected] to their employee Bappa Ghosal with subject "select shaadi SH99787714". Information shared by her to SHO vide notice under Section 91 Cr.PC received in March 2022 is on file from page No.78 to 85, already exhibited as Ex.PW1/J. On the day of testimony, she submitted Certificate under Section 65B regarding information shared from pages 78 to 85.

10.4. When the Ld. Prosecutor sought to cross-examine the witness as she had not deposed complete facts mentioned in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC dated 02.05.2022, the court allowed it. During said cross-examination, the witness confirmed that members of Shaadi.com send emails to company email IDs [email protected] and [email protected]. They give all emails received a word 'ticket'. Only employees of customer care of Shaadi.com can access those emails, not all employees. At that time, 30-40 employees were working in customer care. Those 30-40 employees could access those emails, though not all might have accessed or read emails coming to the customer care help desk. The company used to assign one particular customer care employee to resolve issues pertaining to emails received on help desk email IDs. 10.5. The witness clarified regarding document paginated 51 that the email was sent to their employee Bappa Ghosal, though she could not see Bappa Ghosal's email ID from that document. When asked to whom the DLND010042342022 Page 21 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act email ID [email protected] is related, she stated that based on document at page 55, this email ID belongs to Shaadi.com member with profile ID SH01131299 namely Somkanya Das.

10.6. As per document paginated 53, on 29.04.2020, mails were received from Shaadi.com member SH01131299 addressed to [email protected] and marked to skm38hotmail.com, Bappag.selectshaadi@people [email protected]. When asked to whom skm38hotmail.com is related, she stated she was not able to find any profile with this email ID. As per documents paginated 51 and 53, some abusive remarks were passed against another profile holder of profile SH99787714, though she stated she could not say whether the remarks were abusive. As per document paginated 78, profile SH99787714 belongs to a member namely Sushant M. 10.7. Documents Exhibited

a) Ex.PW7/A: Reply to notice bearing witness's signatures at point A

b) Ex.PW7/B: Documents supplied along with reply, from pages 51 to 71 (collectively)

c) Ex.PW7/C: Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding documents paging 51 to 71, bearing witness's signatures at point A (objected to by defense on ground of admissibility as defective certificate not as per law, not bearing model description of device from which documents were retrieved)

d) Ex.PW7/D: Certificate under Section 65B regarding information from pages 78 to 85, bearing witness's signatures at point A

e) Ex.PW1/J: Information shared vide notice under Section 91 Cr.PC DLND010042342022 Page 22 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act from page No.78 to 85 (already exhibited).

Cross-Examination 10.8. The witness testified she has been working in Shaadi.com since 2014 till date. She initially joined as Senior Manager (Legal), thereafter got promotions and was promoted to Associate Director (Legal) and then Director (Legal) (Presently). When asked about her job profile, she stated she is the legal advisor of the company. She had no interaction with persons who applied for membership in Shaadi.com . She has no personal knowledge about the present case; all facts deposed by her were based on documents supplied by her to police officials.

10.9. All documents supplied to police officials in pursuance of notice under Section 91 Cr.PC were retrieved by her, except for the email dated 22.04.2020 as the employee had left the organization. This email was retrieved with help of IT Department. She admitted that in the Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, she had not mentioned details such as description, model number, and manufacturing year of electronic device/computer from which documents were retrieved. Computer devices from which documents were retrieved are not seized by police officials till date.

10.10. They do not verify personally the details submitted by members looking for life partners. All documents supplied by her to police officials were first time seen by her when she received notice under Section 91 Cr.PC from police officials. As per company norms, all details of members of Shaadi.com are confidential. Communications/talks between member and relationship manager are confidential, though in case of any DLND010042342022 Page 23 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act complaint, they as a company see those mails or documented talks to ascertain facts.

10.11. She did not know when the complaint of Mr. S.K. Mandal was received by the company, particularly the year and month. Before the notice under Section 91 Cr.PC was received and she retrieved the mails, to her knowledge there was no complaint from Relationship Manager Bappa Ghosal or otherwise by complainant S.K. Mandal/member given to her or the company.

10.12. She denied that this case is fabricated at the instance of member S.K. Mandal and Bappa Ghosal. She denied that all mails and documents are forged and fabricated at S.K. Mandal and Bappa Ghosal's instance. She denied deposing falsely at S.K. Mandal and Bappa Ghosal's instance.

11. PW-8: SI RAJPAL SINGH8 11.1. The witness deposed that on 17.03.2022, he was posted at PS Vasant Kunj (North) as ASI and was working as Duty Officer from 4:00 PM to 12:00 midnight. On that day, at about 11:31 PM, Sh. Ajay Vedwal, ACP Vasant Kunj, gave him a complaint after making endorsement on it for FIR registration. He made endorsement on it and registered the FIR based on the complaint. After FIR registration, he handed over the FIR copy and original tehrir to ACP Sh. Ajay Vedwal for investigation. 11.2. Documents Exhibited

a) Ex.PW8/A: Witness's endorsement on complaint bearing his signatures at point A 8 Designation: Sub-Inspector No. 3531D, PS New Delhi Zone, PCR, Date of Examination: 14.05.2025 DLND010042342022 Page 24 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act

b) Ex.PW1/K: FIR bearing witness's signatures at point B (already exhibited)

c) Ex.PW8/B: Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding FIR bearing witness's signatures at point A Cross-Examination 11.3. The witness testified that Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is regarding computerized copy of FIR as per Indian Evidence Act. In the Certificate under Section 65B exhibited as Ex.PW8/B, details and description of electronic device being model, make, etc. have not been mentioned. He denied deposing falsely at the IO's behest and that no FIR was registered by him.

12. PW-9: PARVEEN KUMAR9 12.1. The witness brought CAF of mobile number 8777061286 . As per the CAF, the mobile number belongs to Chandra Kumar Dass and was a prepaid connection allotted to Chandra Kumar Dass on 10.04.2017 . He submitted certified copy of CAF of the aforesaid number . He also brought certified copy of CDR of the aforesaid number for the period 15.03.2022 to 10.04.2022. He submitted certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding the aforesaid CAF and CDR. He also submitted Cell ID chart of the above mobile number, which was prepared manually. 12.2. Documents Exhibited

a) Ex.PW9/A: Certified copy of CAF bearing witness's initial at point A (objected to on basis of admissibility since document is not 9 Designation: Nodal Officer, Reliance Jio, Plot No.1, 4th Floor, Reliance Mall, A Block, Vikas Puri, Delhi, Date of Examination: 15.05.2025 DLND010042342022 Page 25 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act true copy of document in charge-sheet)

b) Ex.PW9/B: Certified copy of CDR for period 15.03.2022 to 10.04.2022 bearing witness's initial at point A (objected to on basis of admissibility since not true copy of document in charge-sheet)

c) Ex.PW9/C: Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding CAF and CDR bearing witness's signatures at point A (objected to on basis of admissibility as dated 15.05.2025, not part of record, and not as per provisions of Section 65B not disclosing details and description of electronic device from which document was retrieved)

d) Ex.PW9/D: Cell ID chart bearing witness's initial at point A (objected to on basis of admissibility as not part of charge-sheet) Cross-Examination 12.3. The witness testified he has been working as Nodal Officer since January 2018. Document Ex.PW9/C is dated 15.05.2025. No date is mentioned on documents Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B and Ex.PW9/D. He stated that documents paginated 158 to 192 were sent by him to IO by mail but he did not remember the date . The above-mentioned documents were given in 2022. In document Ex.PW9/C, details and description being model, make, etc. of electronic device are not mentioned from which documents exhibited were retrieved.

13. PW-10: AJAY VEDWAL10 13.1. The witness deposed that on 17.03.2022, he was posted as ACP 10 Designation: ACP Aman Vihar (posted as ACP Vasant Kunj on 17.03.2022) Date of Examination: 15.05.2025 DLND010042342022 Page 26 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act Vasant Kunj. On that date, one complaint of Sh. Sushant Kumar Mandal was received in his office with opinion of Legal consultant Delhi Police Sh. Chirag Jamwal. He perused the complaint and opinion and found a prima facie case under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act was made out. He made endorsement on the complaint and directed the Duty Officer PS Vasant Kunj (N) to register FIR . After FIR registration, investigation was handed over to Sh. Satbir Singh, ACP Vasant Vihar under orders of DCP (SW).

13.2. Documents Exhibited

a) Ex.PW10/A: Endorsement on complaint bearing witness's signatures at point B Cross-Examination 13.3. The witness did not remember the exact date when the complaint was received. The complaint was received in his office from the office of DCP (SW). He never called the complainant to his office . In the legal opinion, it was mentioned that offence under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST Act was made out. He never collected any document from the complainant. He never called the accused before him . He has no knowledge whether any complaint made by the accused was pending in his office at that time. He denied that a false case was registered against the accused or that he was deposing falsely.

14. PW-11: TAMAGHNA KAR11 11 Designation: SDO, Alipore, South 24 Parganas, West Bengal; Dates of Examination:

02.06.2025 (Examination-in-Chief and initial Cross-Examination) - 02.06.2025 (Recalled for further Cross-Examination after post-lunch) DLND010042342022 Page 27 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act 14.1. The witness deposed that since 30.10.2023, he was posted as SDO at Alipore, South 24 Parganas, West Bengal . Letter No. 215/SC/ST/OBC dated 29.04.2022 present on file has been issued from their office. As per the letter, Caste Certificate issued in favor of Mr. Sushanta Kr. Mondal, S/o Sh Dinesh Ch. Mondal, R/o Subhash Pally, District- South 24 Parganas, Kolkata, West Bengal is genuine. He brought copy of issued register-2022 and as per the copy vide Sl. No. 215, the above letter was issued from their department on 29.04.2022 in favor of Assistant Commissioner of Police. He brought the original counterpart of the Caste Certificate.

 14.2.    Documents Exhibited
          a)       Mark X: Letter No. 215/SC/ST/OBC dated 29.04.2022
          b)       Mark X-1: Copy of issued register-2022
          c)       Ex. PW11/A (already marked as PW1/DA): Caste Certificate
         (original seen and returned)
          d)       Mark PW11/DX: Downloaded copy of The Constitution (Sch.
         Castes) Order, 1950
Cross-Examination

14.3. The witness testified that prior to 30.10.2023, he was posted as District Panchayat and Rural Development Officer at North-24 Parganas, West Bengal. In 1982, the Scheduled Caste & Tribe Certificate was issued under the Constitution (Sch. Caste) Order, 1950 and Constitution (Sch.

Tribe) Order, 1950 [as amended by the Sch. Castes and Sch. Tribes lists (modification) Order, 1956]. He has no knowledge whether any application was moved by Mr. Sushanta Kr. Mondal for issuance of above DLND010042342022 Page 28 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act certificate in their department, stating everything was done as per the above order. At the time when the Caste Certificate was issued, he was not posted in the above department.

14.4. When recalled for further cross-examination, the witness stated he brought downloaded copy of constitution (Sch. Caste) Order, 1950. He is M.Sc in Economics and completed it in 2003. He was never posted with the ADM who had prepared the Caste Certificate exhibited as Ex. PW11/A . He has never seen him writing and signing. He cannot say that at the time when caste certificate Ex PW11/A was prepared, verification of the caste of the person was done or not.

14.5. He denied that the Caste Certificate is manipulated and fabricated document issued without proper verification of the person's caste in whose name the certificate was issued . He denied the suggestion that whatever he is stating in Court is only based on records obtained from the office and he has no personal knowledge about the same . He denied that the person Sushanta Kr. Mondal does not belong to SC/ST category. He denied deposing falsely at police official's instance.

15. PW No: 12 Satvir Singh (Retired ACP)12 15.1. Sh. Satvir Singh deposed that on 29th March 2022, he was serving as Assistant Commissioner of Police posted at Vasant Vihar. The further investigation in the present case was officially assigned to him on that 12 Designation: Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Vasant Vihar (at the time of investigation); Dates of Examination : PW12 was examined on the following dates: 1. 30th July 2025 - Initial examination-in-chief commenced

2. 5th August 2025 - Recalled for cross-examination (deferred for document procurement)

3. 12th August 2025 - Further cross-examination concluded DLND010042342022 Page 29 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act date. He received the case file from ACP Vasant Kunj. 15.2. The witness issued a notice under Section 91 Cr.PC to the complainant Sushanta Kumar Mandal, who responded by joining the investigation on 2nd April 2022. During this meeting, the complainant personally handed over several crucial documents to the investigating officer. These documents included a copy of his Scheduled Caste certificate, already (exhibited as Ex. PW1/D). Additionally, the complainant provided five pages of e-mails that had been exchanged, which were marked as Ex. PW1/E, Ex. PW1/F, and Ex. PW1/G. He also submitted three pages of call logs collectively marked as Ex. PW1/H. Furthermore, one page containing a copy of the Aadhar card in the name of Maitree Das was handed over and marked as Mark A, along with a copy of the Voter ID card in the name of Maitree Das, which was marked as Mark A1. The defense counsel objected to the marking of these documents. All these materials were formally taken into possession through a seizure memorandum that was exhibited as Ex. PW1/C. 15.3. The investigating officer recorded the statement of Sushanta Kumar Mandal in accordance with Section 161 Cr.PC. Significantly, he carried out videography of the statement recording process as mandated by the provisions of law, ensuring procedural compliance and creating an authentic record of the complainant's testimony. 15.4. In furtherance of the investigation, the witness issued multiple notices to Shaadi.com, the matrimonial website central to this case. The first notice sought particulars as mentioned therein and was exhibited as Ex. PW12/A, bearing his signature at point A. He dispatched another DLND010042342022 Page 30 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act notice to Shaadi.com requesting additional requisite information, which was marked as Ex. PW12/C, also signed by him at point A. Subsequently, he issued yet another notice to Shaadi.com for further information, exhibited as Ex. PW12/E and signed at point A. 15.5. In response to these notices, the investigating officer received comprehensive replies from Shaadi.com. The company submitted a report that was already exhibited as Ex. PW3/A. Additionally, Shaadi.com provided a reply accompanied by annexures ranging from Annexure A to Annexure D, collectively marked as Ex. PW7/B. A certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was also supplied, which was exhibited as Ex. PW7/C. The witness also obtained another reply from Shaadi.com through a letter marked as Mark X1. Furthermore, he obtained a copy of an e-mail dated 21st April 2020, which was marked as Mark X2. This e-mail was formally taken into possession through seizure memorandum Ex. PW12/D, which bore his signature at point A and the signature of Usha Kumar at point B in his presence. The final reply from Shaadi.com in response to his notice was already exhibited as Ex. PW1/J. 15.6. The witness also initiated communication with Google LLC regarding the email account from which the allegedly offensive emails originated. He sent a notice to Google company via e-mail, which was exhibited as Ex. PW12/F, bearing his signature at point A. Upon receiving a reply from Google through e-mail, he marked it as Mark X3. He subsequently sent another notice to Google company by e-mail, exhibited as Ex. PW12/G and signed at point A. To ensure proper service, he also dispatched a copy of the said notice to Google's physical address at 691, DLND010042342022 Page 31 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act Delhi-Jaipur Expressway, Silokhera, Sector-15, Gurgaon. Google responded with a reply marked as Mark X4, in which they confirmed the email ID but stated that they had provided an alternative recovery e-mail ID belonging to the accused.

15.7. The investigating officer issued notices under Section 92 Cr.PC to various telecommunication service providers to obtain Call Detail Records (CDR) and Customer Application Forms (CAF) of relevant mobile phone numbers. He sent a notice to the Nodal Officer of Vodafone-Idea, a copy of which was exhibited as Ex. PW12/H, signed at point A. A reply was duly received from Vodafone-Idea and placed on record. Similarly, he sent notices to Bharti Airtel Limited through Notice Ex. PW12/I, signed at point A, and the reply received was already exhibited as Ex. PW5/A. He also sent a notice to Reliance Jio, exhibited as Ex. PW12/J and signed at point A, and the reply received was marked as Ex. PW9/A to Ex PW9/D. 15.8. The witness sent a notice to the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) for verification of the complainant's Caste Certificate. A copy of this notice was exhibited as Ex. PW12/B, bearing his signature at Point A. In response, he received a verification report from the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, South 24 Parganas, Alipore, which was marked as Mark X. 15.9. A significant step in the investigation was the arrest of the accused. The witness arrested the accused person vide arrest memorandum already exhibited as Ex. PW2/A and personal search memorandum Ex. PW2/B. The accused was present in Court on the day of his testimony through video conference, and he identified her. Following the arrest, he DLND010042342022 Page 32 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act interrogated the accused and recorded her disclosure statement, which was already exhibited as Ex. PW2/C. 15.10. The investigating officer also issued a notice to the accused under Section 91 Cr.PC, which was exhibited as Ex. PW12K. In consequence to this notice, a reply was received from the accused. In her written response, the accused stated that she belonged to the General caste category and had already discarded the mobile phone through which she allegedly sent the e-mails. The accused personally delivered this reply to him, and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW12/L. 15.11. The witness also issued a notice to the complainant requesting him to produce his mobile phone and laptop, which were the devices through which he was communicating with the accused and Shaadi.com. However, the complainant replied that he possessed personal and official data on these devices and therefore declined to surrender his laptop and mobile phone for examination.

15.12. During the course of investigation, the witness recorded the statements of key witnesses including Bappa Ghoshal, who served as the Relationship Manager at Shaadi.com, and Ms. Usha Kumar, who was employed with Shaadi.com. These statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC, and videography was conducted during the statement recording process to maintain procedural authenticity. 15.13. The investigating officer provided his personal mobile number to the complainant to facilitate communication and enable him to contact the IO as and when required during the investigation. He sent a copy of the FIR to the SC/ST Commission as mandated by law. Upon completion of the DLND010042342022 Page 33 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act investigation, he filed the challan (charge-sheet) in Court. 15.14. The witness deposed that despite issuing several notices and summons to Google LLC to join the investigation, the notices were not complied with, and nobody from Google company came forward to join the investigations of the present case. The notices and summons were issued in the name of Google LLC, but no representative was forthcoming to appear before the Court. He expressed his assessment that there was no likelihood of anyone from Google LLC, USA coming forward to make deposition before the Court.

15.15. Documents Exhibited

a) Ex. PW12A - Notice issued to Shaadi.com to provide particulars (signed at point A)

b) Ex. PW12B - Notice sent to concerned SDM for verification of Caste Certificate (signed at point A)

c) Ex. PW12C - Second notice to Shaadi.com to provide requisite information (signed at point A)

d) Ex. PW12D - Seizure memo for e-mail dated 21.04.2020 (signed at point A by witness and at point B by Usha Kumar)

e) Ex. PW12E - Third notice to Shaadi.com to provide requisite information (signed at point A)

f) Ex. PW12F - Notice to Google company sent via e-mail (signed at point A)

g) Ex. PW12G - Second notice to Google company sent via e- mail (signed at point A)

h) Ex. PW12H - Notice to Nodal Officer, Vodafone-Idea (signed DLND010042342022 Page 34 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act at point A)

i) Ex. PW12I - Notice to Bharti Airtel Limited (signed at point A)

j) Ex. PW12J - Notice to Reliance Jio (signed at point A)

k) Ex. PW12K - Notice issued to accused under Section 91 Cr.PC

l) Ex. PW12L - Reply received from accused in response to notice under Section 91 Cr.PC

16. Cross-Examination 16.1. During cross-examination conducted by Sh. R.K. Wadhwa and Sh. Ayush Singh Sahni, learned counsel for the accused, the witness made several significant admissions and clarifications that are crucial for assessing the quality and thoroughness of the investigation. 16.2. Witness candidly acknowledged that this was his first investigation under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

16.3. The witness admitted that the complainant had initially filed a complaint in Police Station Vasant Kunj in the year 2020. However, from 2020 until 2022, no FIR was lodged on the basis of that complaint. When questioned, he stated that he was not aware as to why the FIR was not lodged prior to 2022. He disclosed that before him, there were two other ACPs who had dealt with the complainant's complaint, namely ACP Ajay Vedwal and ACP Naresh Kumar. He further admitted that under his official jurisdiction as ACP Vasant Vihar, he was not actually overlooking or supervising Police Station Vasant Kunj North, where the FIR was eventually registered.

State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act 16.4. The witness deposed that he met the complainant for the first time on 2nd April 2022 in his office at R.K. Puram. He had issued a notice to the complainant, pursuant to which the complainant came to his office. Significantly, he admitted that the notice issued under Section 160 Cr.PC was not placed on the judicial file. However, he clarified that a notice under Section 91 Cr.PC was indeed on the judicial file. The complainant arrived at around 2:00 PM and remained in his office till 4:00 PM. The complainant came alone for this meeting, and at that time, Sub-Inspector Kavita was also present in his office.

16.5. Regarding the verification of the complainant's Scheduled Caste certificate (Ex. PW1/D), the witness stated that he had verified the certificate by sending a notice to the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer. A reply was duly received from the SDO's office confirming the genuineness of the certificate. However, he admitted that he had not personally visited the SDO's office to get the certificate physically verified. He sent the notice on 28th April 2022 through e-mail. When specifically questioned whether the said email dated 28th April 2022 was on record, the witness, after going through the judicial file, stated that it was not on the judicial record. However, he maintained that his letter and the reply received were both on record, which were already exhibited as Ex. PW12/D and Mark X. 16.6. A critical aspect of the cross-examination concerned the verification and authenticity of the electronic evidence, particularly the allegedly offensive emails. The witness admitted that he had not sent any electronic device to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination of the DLND010042342022 Page 36 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act veracity and genuineness of the electronic data contained in the devices. When asked whether he had verified and investigated the veracity and genuineness of the alleged emails received from the accused person and Shaadi.com, he responded that he had verified the emails given to him by the complainant from Shaadi.com and Google LLC by issuing notices under Section 91 Cr.PC. However, Google LLC was unable to provide the details of the emails themselves.

16.7. The witness was specifically questioned whether he had personally investigated the documents supplied by Shaadi.com. He admitted that he had not further investigated into those documents beyond receiving them. His explanation was that the said documents were received from Shaadi.com in reply to his notice under Section 91 Cr.PC, and he accepted them at face value without conducting independent verification or forensic examination.

16.8. Regarding the email ID from which the allegedly abusive emails were sent to the complainant, the witness stated that the emails were received from the email ID [email protected]. He had attempted to verify this fact from Google company. Google confirmed the existence of the email ID but stated that they did not maintain records with respect to the emails sent from that particular ID. Significantly, the witness admitted that as per the reply received from Google, the said email ID was not registered in the name of the accused Somkanya Chandreyee Dass. Rather, it appeared to be in the name of the initials of the father of the accused, namely "ckdkmr," which could stand for Chander Kumar Das. When pressed on this point, the witness conceded that there was nothing DLND010042342022 Page 37 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act on record to definitively connect the name of the father of the accused with the aforesaid email ID except for the fact that the initials were similar to that of his name.

16.9. A crucial admission concerned the non-seizure of electronic devices. The witness admitted that he had not seized any mobile phone or other electronic device belonging to the accused from which she allegedly sent the offensive emails. His explanation was that the accused had stated in her reply that the mobile phone had already been discarded. Similarly, he admitted that he had not seized any mobile phone or other electronic device belonging to the complainant on which he purportedly received the aforesaid emails. The reason provided was that the complainant had stated that he possessed personal and official data on his laptop and therefore could not provide the same for forensic examination. The witness also admitted that he had not seized any electronic device from Shaadi.com to be sent to the FSL for forensic analysis.

16.10. Regarding the investigation conducted in Kolkata, the witness admitted that he had not personally traveled to Calcutta for investigation in the present case. However, he stated that he had deputed a team of police officials to Calcutta for investigation purposes. When questioned, he admitted that he had not placed any document on the judicial file to demonstrate that he had sent a police team to Calcutta for investigation. He attempted to justify this by stating that such documentation was available in the police file (case diary) but not in the judicial file. He stated that he had sent three police officials to Calcutta for the investigation. Significantly, he admitted that the fact of the police team visiting Calcutta DLND010042342022 Page 38 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act had not been mentioned by him in the charge-sheet, which is a procedural lapse.

16.11. The witness deposed that he met the accused for the first time on 11th May 2022 in the Court premises when she appeared pursuant to legal process.

16.12. The defense counsel put forth several suggestions to the witness, all of which he denied. He denied the suggestion that the electronic data, including the alleged emails and the Shaadi.com profiles, were forged and fabricated documents, and that this was the reason why he did not conduct proper investigation nor seize any electronic devices to be sent to the FSL to examine their genuineness and veracity. He denied the suggestion that since the complainant was a computer engineer by profession and possessed technical expertise, he had created forged and fabricated documents to file a false case against the accused person. He denied that the alleged emails were fabricated. He denied the suggestion that the profile on Shaadi.com was in fact a fake profile created for the purpose of falsely implicating the accused. He denied the suggestion that the email IDs were falsely generated by the complainant to file a fabricated case against the accused person. He denied that he was deposing falsely in connivance with the complainant. He also denied the suggestion that he had not conducted the investigation properly and professionally.

17. Statement of accused:

17.1. Statement of the accused was recorded on 20.09.2025 in which she denied the evidence against her and claimed to be innocent. She stated that the email from which the derogatory email was allegedly sent do not DLND010042342022 Page 39 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act belong to her.

17.2. The accused declined to lead evidence in her defence.

18. Final Arguments:

18.1. The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State opened arguments by presenting the prosecution's case that all charges against the accused have been duly proved and she is liable to be convicted. The prosecution relied heavily on reading the depositions of important witnesses and making reference to documentary evidence exhibited during trial. The key witnesses presented included PW-1 (the complainant Sushant Kr. Mandal), PW-3 (Bappa Ghosal, the Relationship Manager at Shaadi.com), PW-7 (Usha Vinod Kumar, Legal Manager at Shaadi.com), PW-11 (SDO Alipore regarding caste certificate verification), and PW-12 (ACP Vasant Vihar, the Investigating Officer). The prosecution argued that the investigation was conducted by a senior police officer of ACP rank as mandated by the SC/ST (POA) Act, lending credibility to the evidence collected. The Additional Public Prosecutor maintained that the certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act follow the same format used in various other cases in courts and therefore should not be doubted. The prosecution's core contention was that the documentary evidence has been properly proved through witness testimony and establishes that the accused committed the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.

18.2. The counsel for the complainant, Sh. Narender Singh, supported the prosecution's case with additional submissions and addressed arguments in rebuttal to the defense. His arguments were duly recorded in ordersheet DLND010042342022 Page 40 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act dated 06.10.2025. He explained that the delay in lodging the FIR was primarily because of a pending application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which remained pending until orders were passed by the Ld. predecessor, after which the FIR was registered. The counsel referred to specific pages in the chargesheet to support the case, including pages 55 and 77 regarding the complainant's profile on Shaadi.com, page 102 for the complainant's CAF (Customer Application Form), page 178 for the accused's profile, and the CAF of the accused's father regarding mobile phones used in the commission of the offence. Addressing the question of how the accused learned about the complainant's caste, the counsel submitted that PW-3 Bappa Ghosal, the Relationship Manager, was the source of this information, even though the complainant's caste was not mentioned in his Shaadi.com profile. He particularly emphasized the deposition of PW- 7 to establish that the incident occurred in "public view" as required under the Act, arguing that 30-40 employees in the company had accessed the offensive emails sent by the accused, thereby satisfying the public view requirement. The counsel also referred to page 38 of the chargesheet to demonstrate that the caste certificate of the complainant was duly issued and verified by concerned authorities from both Delhi and West Bengal governments. He pointed out that the accused did not take any substantial defense during her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. The counsel for the complainant concluded by emphasizing that the present matter is primarily based on documentary evidence which has been duly proved by the prosecution, warranting conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act 18.3. The defense counsels, comprising Sh. R.K. Wadhwa, Sh. Ayush Singh Sahni, Sh. Jatin Sharma, and Sh. Shaurya Chaudhary, addressed final arguments and also filed comprehensive written submissions seeking acquittal of the accused on seven major grounds.

a) The first and most critical argument centered on the absence of "public view" as required under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. The defense argued that emails are private electronic communications and do not constitute "public view," relying on Supreme Court precedents in Karuppudayar vs. State 2025 INSC 132 and Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand (Crl Appeal No. 707/2020) dated 05.11.2020, which held that for an offense under this section, it must occur "in any place within public view" - meaning open to members of the public, not just persons in fiduciary relationships. The defense contended that PW-3 (Bappa Ghosal) and PW-7 (Usha Vinod) were in monetary and fiduciary relationships with the complainant through Shaadi.com and were not independent public witnesses, and that PW- 7 herself admitted that communications between members and relationship managers at Shaadi.com are confidential as per company norms.

b) The second major ground of defense challenged the admissibility of all electronic evidence due to defective certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The defense relied heavily on the Supreme Court judgment in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal MANU/SC/0521/2020, which mandated that Section 65B(4) certificates are mandatory for DLND010042342022 Page 42 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act admissibility of electronic records and oral evidence cannot substitute for them. The defense argued that all electronic documents produced by various witnesses lacked valid Section 65B certificates because they failed to disclose essential details like model, make, manufacturer, and serial number of electronic devices. Furthermore, no electronic devices (mobile phones, laptops, computers) were seized from any witness for forensic examination, and the CDRs produced were not from the relevant time period and were therefore irrelevant to the case.

c) The third ground attacked the credibility of the complainant's testimony, pointing out multiple contradictions. The defense highlighted that PW-1 gave three different versions of when he learned the accused's real name: first in June 2020 at Delhi Police Women Crime Cell, second from Bappa Ghosal who allegedly disclosed it, and third on September 2, 2020, at Kolkata Cyber Cell. The complainant also contradicted himself by first claiming abuse over telephone but later stating "I had no direct interaction with the accused person". The defense also argued that since the complainant is a computer engineer in electronic communication, he could have forged the emails himself.

d) The fourth and fifth grounds challenged the reliability of PW- 3 (Bappa Ghosal) and PW-7 (Usha Vinod Kumar). The defense pointed out that PW-3 confused the Shaadi.com profile IDs and gave contradictory testimony, and was unable to recollect crucial details like mobile numbers, email IDs, or IP addresses during cross-examination.

State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act Regarding PW-7, the defense argued she was merely a hearsay witness with no personal knowledge who testified only based on documents, and that she confirmed no complaint was given by PW-1 or PW-3 to her or the company. The defense also noted that the Public Prosecutor cross-examined PW-7 because she didn't disclose complete facts, raising doubts about her testimony.

e) The sixth ground challenged the verification of the complainant's caste certificates. The defense argued that the complainant's Delhi caste certificate did not mention his date of birth and was supposedly based on a West Bengal certificate that was never directly verified. The defense highlighted that PW-11 (SDO Alipore) was not posted in the department when the certificate was issued, had no knowledge whether any application was filed, never worked with or saw the ADM who prepared the certificate, and could not confirm if verification was done. Mysteriously, PW-11 had the original West Bengal caste certificate while the complainant himself only had a photocopy, raising doubts about document forgery. The defense emphasized that PW-11 was unable to prove the genuineness of the West Bengal caste certificate, which is foundational to the charges under SC/ST (POA) Act.

f) The seventh ground alleged improper and biased investigation by PW-12 (the Investigating Officer). The defense pointed out that the IO admitted his jurisdiction as ACP Vasant Vihar did not cover PS Vasant Kunj North, and no authorization document was produced. Despite claims of videography, no video was placed on record, and DLND010042342022 Page 44 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act despite the complainant's refusal to hand over electronic devices, the IO never investigated to authenticate the electronic documents. The defense highlighted that Google's reply showed the email ID [email protected] was not registered in the accused's name, yet no further investigation was conducted. The IO also claimed offending emails were sent from an altogether different email ID ([email protected]), creating grave doubts. No electronic device was sent to Forensic Science Lab for analysis, IP addresses were not verified, and there was no evidence that the alleged Shaadi.com profile belonged to the accused.

18.4. In conclusion, the defense argued that due to invalid certificates rendering electronic documents inadmissible, lack of proof of the complainant's genuine SC/ST status, failure to prove the "public view"

element, and unreliable and contradictory witness testimony, the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused should be acquitted. The defense also made submissions in rebuttal reiterating these points and emphasizing that the CDR of the relevant period was not obtained and therefore has no relevance to prove the charges.

Legal Requirement

19. To secure a conviction under under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the following essential facts must be proved:

a) Caste of accused: The accused person must not be a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe .

State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act

b) Intentional Insult or Intimidation: The accused must have intentionally insulted or intimidated the victim

c) Specific Intent to Humiliate: There must be a specific intent on the part of the accused to humiliate the victim. This intent to humiliate is a crucial element that distinguishes this offense .

d) Victim's Caste Status: The victim must be a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.

e) Public View Requirement: The act of insult or intimidation must have been committed in any place within public view. This is a critical element, and if the act occurred in a private place, the offense under Section 3(1)(r) will not be attracted .

20. The prosecution bears the burden of proving these elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Any significant doubt regarding the evidence or its reliability favors the accused.

Analysis of evidence

21. The findings of the court on various aspects of the offence, under different headings are as under:

22. Whether the complainant belongs to Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe? 22.1. The foremost question to be decided by the court in an offence under the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 is whether the complainant belongs to Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe or not? This fact has to be proved beyond doubt.

22.2. In this regard, it may be noted that nowhere in the complaint Ex. PW1/A, the complainant mentioned his 'caste' and the fact that the said 'caste' falls under the Schedule Caste category as notified by the DLND010042342022 Page 46 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act Government. It is only in the subject of the said complaint that the complainant gives some reference to his caste by stating 'my schedule caste".

22.3. Coming to his deposition as PW1, he never stated in his examination-in-chief on oath before the court that he belongs to "Namasudra" caste which is a Schedule Caste. He merely stated on Page 4 of deposition dated 28.08.2024 that: "I have brought my caste certificate in original, copy of same is Ex. PW1/E signed by me at point A. 22.4. However, in his cross-examination, he stated: "I belong to Schedule Caste (Namasudra)." The relevant portion of the cross-examination is as under:

"I belong to scheduled caste (Namasudra). My original caste certificate was not seized by the investigating agency. The said caste certificate has been issued by the State of West Bengal and when I moved to Delhi along with my father, the said caste certificate was re-issued from Delhi Government.

My date of birth is not mentioned on the caste certificate already Ex.PW-1/D. It is correct that in the caste certificate issued by the State of West Bengal, my date of birth is not mentioned and the same is now marked as Mark PW-1/DA (vol. Perhaps this is the standard format where the date of birth is not mentioned). It is wrong to suggest that the certificates have not been issued from the Government Department and the same are fabricated and manipulated. The original caste certificate was not seized by the police."

22.5. The prosecution examined PW11 Sh. Tamaghna Kar, SDO, Alipur, South 24 Pargana, West Bengal to prove the caste certificate. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed as under:

"Since 30.10.2023 till date, I am posted as SDO at Alipore, South 24, Parganas, West Bengal. Letter No. 215/SC/ST/OBC dated:

State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act 29.04.2022 present on the file has been issued from our office. As per the said letter, Caste Certificate issued in favour of Mr. Sushanta Kr. Mondal, S/o Sh Dinesh Ch. Mondal, R/o Subhash Pally, District-

South 24 Parganas,Kolkata, West Bengal is genuine. The said letter is now marked as X. I have brought the copy of the issued register- 2022 and as per the said copy vide SI. No. 215, the above stated letter was issued from our department on 29.04.2022 in favour of Asst. Commissioner of Police. I am submitting the said copy which is marked as X-1. I have also brought the original counterpart of the above stated Caste Certificate copy of which is on the file which is according to the original record brought by me today and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW11/A and already marked as PW1/DA (original seen and returned)."

22.6. In his cross-examination, he admitted two important facts:

a) That he was never posted with the ADM who prepared the Caste Certificate exhibited as Ex. PW11/A.

b) That he could not say whether at the time when the caste certificate was prepared, verification of the caste of the complainant was done or not prior to issuing the caste certificate.

22.7. These two admissions have been strongly relied upon By Ld. Counsel for the accused to argue that the caste certificate was not proved as per law.

22.8. Perusal of the certificate Ex. PW1/A reveals that it was issued on 21.01.1982 and from the deposition of PW11, it is evident that the said certificate is available in the records of the concerned department. Thus, as far as identification of the signatures of the ADM is concerned, in view of Section 90 of Indian Evidence Act, as the caste certificate Ex. PW11/A is more than 30 years old and is produced from the proper custody of the concerned department, hence, it is presumed that the said certificate was DLND010042342022 Page 48 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act signed by the then ADM, 24 Parganas.

22.9. Further, as the certificate was issued by ADM in 1982 in his official capacity, hence, as per Section 114 Illustration (e), this court may presume that the official act of the ADM in issuing the caste certificate Ex. PW1/A had been regularly performed. The said presumptions could not be rebutted by the defence.

22.10. Thus, in view of the presumptions in favour of the complainant, as far as caste certificate is concerned, it is held that the prosecution established that the complainant belongs to "Namasudra" caste, which is a notified Schedule Caste.

23. Motive?

23.1. As per the complaint Ex. PW1/A and FIR, the complainant was a paid member of shaadi.com having ID SH99787714. Mr. Bappa Ghoshal was his relationship manager.

23.2. It is alleged that on 08.01.2020, his relationship manager Bappa Ghoshal approached him with the profile of one "Emon Maitryee Dutta Das" having ID SH01131299, for matrimonial dialogue. The complainant scruitinized the profile of "Emon Maitryee Dutta Das", but did not find it suitable, hence he refused to meet the said female. In his examination-in- chief, complainant/PW1 categorically deposed:

"When my Relationship Manager shared profile of Ms. Emon. I found it was not suitable for me. So I instructed my Relationship Manager not to follow upon this profile with Ms. Emon."

23.3. PW3 Bappa Ghoshal in his deposition never stated that any profile by the name of "Emon Maitryee Dutta Das" had shown interest in the DLND010042342022 Page 49 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act profile of the complainant. Interestingly, this witness stated that the ID No. SH 0113129 was the ID of the complainant and not that of the lady, though it may be a genuine mistake in recollection of facts. However, one fact which is clear from the deposition of PW3 is that no lady by the name of Emon Maitryee Dutta Das had sent any e-mail or had any telephonic conversation with the complainant in the presence of this witness, as clearly admitted by him in his cross-examination. 23.4. It may however be pointed out that on page 4 of his deposition, he stated that he had met the accused for the first time in court only and that earlier in the profile ID, her name was "Emon Maitryee Dutta Das". The said deposition is, however, contrary to the records collected by IO and given by PW7 Usha Vinod Kumar, Director (Legal and Secretarial) of shaadi.com. In the documents provided by her to IO (Ex. PW7/B and Ex. PW1/J), there is nothing to show that the profile ID SH01131299 was initially, in the name of "Emon Maitryee Dutta Das" and that only subsequently, the subscriber changed the name to "Somkanya Das". There is absolutely nothing on record to establish that the name of the accused was at some point of time "Emon Maitryee Dutta Das" or that she initially deliberately created an ID in a fabricated name of "Emon Maitryee Dutta Das".

23.5. The court fails to understand that as to why would the accused create an ID in a fabricated name on a website on which she is seeking a life partner. The only motive for doing so could be to cheat other innocent subscribers in some manner, but if that was the reason, then why would one indulge in such kind of activity as alleged in the complaint by the DLND010042342022 Page 50 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act complainant. Thus, neither, the motive to create an ID in a fabricated and false name by accused has come forth during deposition of witnesses, nor, the motive behind the alleged e-mails to the complainant is clear. 23.6. Perusal of the content of e-mail shows that the female profile (in the name of Somkanya Das) was aggrieved by some kind of conduct of the complainant, but from the deposition of PW1/Complainant, that too seems impossible as he never had any conversation with the said female and had at the very first instance, exhibited and duly communicated his disinterest in the profile of the female to PW3 Bappa Ghoshal. 23.7. Thus, the motive behind sending the alleged e-mails either by accused or by the said female profile, could not be established by the prosecution.

24. Knowledge of Schedule Caste Status?

24.1. One interesting fact in the case is that in the profile of the complainant Ex. PW1/J, the caste of the complainant is mentioned as "Hindu: Other". There is no mention of the fact that he belongs to Namasudra Caste which is recognized as a Schedule Caste. It may be noted that PW1 neither in his typed complaint to the police Ex. PW1/A categorically stated that he belongs to Schedule Caste, nor in his deposition (which he himself dictated, as mentioned in examination-in- chief) mentioned that he belonged to Schedule Caste. He mentioned in the complaint Ex.PW1/A, that the accused on the telephone claimed to be a Brahmin, however, he did not mention once in his deposition or in his complaint Ex. PW1/A that he belongs to Namasudra caste which is recognized as a Schedule Caste.

State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act 24.2. Thus, if this fact was not mentioned in his profile and he never had any written or oral conversation with the accused, then, how come the accused was aware of the caste of the complainant. It may be that the accused came to know about the caste of the complainant through Relationship Manager PW3 Bappa Ghoshal, but he too did not mention in his deposition that he informed the accused or her parents about the caste of the accused.

24.3. Thus, it is not clear as to how the accused came to know about the caste of the complainant.

24.4. Further, it may be argued that by surname the accused judged the caste of the complainant but that too seems improbable as the surname "Mondal" or "Mandal" is used by various communities across different categories. It is a common surname among peasant and trading communities in Bengal, Jharkhand and Bihar.

24.5. Thus, prosecution failed to establish that how come the accused came to know that the complainant belonged to Schedule Caste, when this fact was not mentioned in his profile Ex. PW1/J (Exhibited during the deposition of Complainant).

25. Anomaly as regards telephonic conversation 25.1. In his complaint, the complainant stated that on 30.04.2020, he received three calls from mobile number 7044298943, which he picked at 11:25 AM and the female caller told him "How dare you to refuse my proposal of shaadi. You are a schedule caste chamar, you know who I am? I am a Brahmin by caste and person like you (schedule caste) are not allowed to enter in our family." However, in his examination-in-chief, he DLND010042342022 Page 52 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act deposed as under:

"Then, on 30.04.2020 and on 01.05.2020, I received six calls from two different numbers and I picked up one call on 30.04.2020 11:25 am and there was a lady on other side used abusive words "how dare you refuse my proposal and called me a scheduled caste".

Later on, during police investigation, it was found that those two numbers were allocated to the father of the accused." 25.2. From the said deposition, it seems that the caller was aggrieved of the fact that her proposal was refused and that she was called schedule caste by the complainant, which is contrary to what is mentioned in the complaint Ex. PW1/A.

26. Admissibility of Electronic Evidence 26.1. The present case is primarily based on electronic evidence, as the entire case rests upon the allegation that the accused sent derogatory emails (electronic mails) to the complainant and to various email Ids of shaddi.com. Thus, the foremost question is as regards the admissibility of the electronic evidence produced before the court. 26.2. Electronic evidence produced by PW-1/complainant

a) The electronic evidence relied upon by PW1 Sushanta Kumar Mandal is inadmissible in evidence for the twin reasons that firstly, no certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act has been produced by him, and secondly, he has neither produced the original electronic record/device (laptop or mobile phone) in Court nor furnished the same to the Investigating Officer despite specific requests made by the IO for production of such devices.

b) Absence of Section 65B Certificate: The settled position of law, as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v.

State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act P.K. Basheer [2014] 11 S.C.R 399 and consistently reiterated in subsequent judgments, including Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (supra), is that a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act is mandatory and a condition precedent to the admissibility of electronic records in evidence. Section 65B forms a complete code when it comes to admissibility of information contained in electronic records, and an electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted unless the requirements under Section 65B are satisfied, including production of a written certificate under Section 65B(4). In the present case, PW1 Sushanta Kumar Mandal has admittedly relied upon electronic evidence in the form of emails allegedly received from the accused. During his examination-in-chief recorded on 28.08.2024, PW1 deposed: "I handed over copy of my caste certificate, photocopies of emails, photocopies of screen shots, photocopy of Aadhar Card of the accused and photocopy of the voter ID of the accused and the same was taken into possession by IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C signed by me at point A." The witness further stated: "The email dated 22.04.2020 was handed over by me to the IO and the same is Ex.PWI/E signed by me at point A. The copy of the email dated 29.04.2020 is Ex.PW1/F signed by me at point A." These averments make it crystal clear that what was handed over to the IO were mere photocopies of emails and photocopies of screenshots, which constitute secondary evidence of electronic records. Critically, there is no material on record to demonstrate that PW1 has DLND010042342022 Page 54 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act furnished any certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of these electronic documents. The certificate under Section 65B(4) is required to identify the electronic record containing the statement, describe the manner in which it was produced, and give particulars of the device involved in the production of the electronic record. The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the relevant device. The entire rationale behind this requirement is to ensure the integrity of the source and authenticity of the electronic data, so that the Court may place reliance on it, particularly since electronic data is prone to tampering and alteration.

The complainant PW1, being in possession of the devices (laptop and mobile phone) on which he allegedly received the impugned emails, was the appropriate person to produce the certificate under Section 65B(4). However, no such certificate has been produced. In the absence of such certificate, the photocopies of emails and screenshots exhibited as Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F, Ex.PW1/G and Ex.PW1/H are wholly inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon to establish the prosecution case.

c) Non-Production of Original Electronic Devices: The second and equally fatal infirmity in the electronic evidence is the complete failure of PW1 to produce the original electronic devices, namely his laptop and mobile phone, on which he claims to have received the alleged offensive emails. The examination of the original device is crucial to establish the authenticity, integrity and reliability of the DLND010042342022 Page 55 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act electronic evidence, particularly when serious criminal allegations are being leveled against an accused person.

During the cross-examination of PW1 recorded on 01.03.2025, it was categorically established that his mobile phone or laptop was not seized by the police during the course of investigation. This establishes beyond doubt that PW1 retained possession and control over his electronic devices throughout the investigation, yet deliberately chose not to produce them.

The testimony of PW12 Sh. Satvir Singh, the Investigating Officer/ACP who conducted the investigation, further corroborates this position and reveals the conscious refusal of the complainant to part with his devices. During his examination-in-chief recorded on 30.07.2025, PW12 specifically deposed: "I had also given a notice to the complainant to produce his mobile phone and laptop through which he was communicating with the accused/shaadi.com to which the complainant had replied that he has personal data on the above devices and hence he did not give his laptop and mobile phone to me." This testimony establishes that the IO had specifically called upon the complainant to produce his laptop and mobile phone for the purposes of investigation, but the complainant refused to comply with this request on the ground that he had personal data on those devices. This position was further reiterated during the cross-examination of PW12 on 05.08.2025, where he stated: "I have not seized any mobile phone or other electronic device of the complainant on which he received the aforesaid emails. Vol. He had stated that he had personal DLND010042342022 Page 56 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act and official data on his laptop and therefore he cannot provide the same."

The excuse offered by the complainant that he had personal and official data on his devices is wholly untenable and unacceptable. If the complainant was genuinely aggrieved and had indeed received offensive emails as alleged, there was no justification for him to withhold the very devices which would have conclusively established his case. The presence of personal or official data on electronic devices is a routine matter and does not constitute a valid ground for refusing to produce the devices for forensic examination. The non-production of the original electronic devices assumes greater significance in the present case when viewed in conjunction with the admission of PW1 during cross-examination that: "I am Engineer in Electronic Communication and MBA in Marketing." Thus, the complainant possesses technical expertise in electronic communication and would be fully aware of the ease with which electronic documents can be manipulated, fabricated or forged. This fact was specifically put to PW12 during cross-examination on 12.08.2025, when the defense suggested: "It is wrong to suggest that since the complainant is a computer engineer, he has given forged and fabricated documents to file the case against the accused person." Although the IO denied this suggestion, the fact remains that the complainant's technical qualifications coupled with his refusal to produce the original devices raises serious doubts about the authenticity of the electronic evidence.

State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act Furthermore, PW12 admitted during cross-examination on 12.08.2025 that: "It is correct that I had not sent any electronic device to FSL for examination of the veracity and genuineness of the electronic data contained in the devices." This admission establishes that no forensic examination was ever conducted to verify the authenticity and genuineness of the alleged emails, which is a serious lapse in investigation.

d) Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that Section 65B differentiates between the original information contained in the computer itself and copies made therefrom--the former being primary evidence and the latter being secondary evidence. When secondary evidence is being relied upon, strict compliance with Section 65B(4) becomes mandatory. In the present case, not only has the complainant failed to produce a certificate under Section 65B(4), but he has also consciously withheld the original electronic devices despite specific demands made by the Investigating Officer.

e) The combined effect of these two failures renders the entire electronic evidence produced by the prosecution inadmissible and unreliable. The photocopies of emails and screenshots, in the absence of certification under Section 65B(4) and without production of the original devices for forensic examination, cannot form the basis of conviction. To accept such evidence would be contrary to the mandatory requirements of law and would open the floodgates for fabricated and manipulated electronic evidence being brought on record, thereby causing serious miscarriage of justice.

State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act

f) For the aforesaid reasons, it is held that the electronic evidence relied upon by PW1 complainant, being photocopies of emails and screenshots exhibited as Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F, Ex.PW1/G and Ex.PW1/H, is wholly inadmissible in evidence and cannot be acted upon. The prosecution has failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of producing a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, and the complainant has deliberately withheld the original electronic devices (laptop and mobile phone) both from the Court and from the Investigating Officer despite specific requests.

g) In these circumstances, the electronic evidence lacks authenticity, reliability and credibility, and the prosecution case based solely on such inadmissible evidence deserves to be rejected. 26.3. Electronic evidence produced by PW-7/ Ms. Usha Vinod Kumar

a) The prosecution heavily relied upon the deposition of PW7 to prove electronic evidence, as she had provided the printout of the emails to the IO and had also provided certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act. She also exhibited these documents during her testimony, though the exhibition of the certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act was specifically objected to by the Ld. Counsel for the accused during the examination in chief of this witness.

b) The certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, exhibited as Ex.PW7/C and submitted by PW7 - Ms. Usha Vinod Kumar, Associated Director-Legal & Secretarial of People Interactive India Pvt. Ltd. (Shaadi.com), cannot be considered a valid certificate under Section 65B for multiple substantive reasons that go DLND010042342022 Page 59 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act to the root of admissibility of electronic records in the present case.

c) Firstly, the fundamental defect in the certificate lies in the fact that PW7, Ms. Usha Vinod Kumar, is the Director-Legal & Secretarial of the company and is not a person from the IT team or department having actual control, custody, or management of the server and computer systems from which the electronic data was retrieved. Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act mandates that the certificate must be signed by a person occupying a "responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (supra) has clarified that the person certifying must have direct knowledge or responsibility over the computer system that produced the electronic record. As a Legal & Secretarial Director, PW7 lacks the technical competence, operational control, and firsthand knowledge of the computer systems, servers, and electronic devices from which the emails and profile data were allegedly retrieved. She is merely a custodian of legal records, not the person who operates or manages the IT infrastructure. This fatal flaw renders the certificate non-compliant with the mandatory requirements of Section 65B(4).

d) Secondly, there exists a glaring contradiction between the letter dated 25.04.2022 (Ex.PW-7/A) signed by the witness herself and the certificate under Section 65B (Ex.PW7/C). In Ex.PW-7/A, PW7 explicitly states in response to Query No. 1: "Please note the email DLND010042342022 Page 60 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act was sent to our ex-employee Mr. Bappa Goshal, who is no longer associated with our organization. Hence, we have retrieved this email with the help of our IT team from the email archives of our ex- employee's email ID." This categorical admission establishes that the electronic data - specifically the email dated 22nd April 2020 addressed to [email protected] - was retrieved by the IT team of the company from the email archives. However, this crucial fact finds absolutely no mention in the certificate under Section 65B (Ex.PW7/C). The certificate is conspicuously silent about who actually retrieved the data, from which server or computer system it was extracted, and under whose technical supervision this retrieval was conducted. If, as stated in Ex.PW-7/A, the IT team was responsible for retrieving the electronic records from the email archives, then logically the certificate under Section 65B should have been issued by a responsible person from the IT department who had direct knowledge and control over the computer system, server, and retrieval process. The fact that PW7 has issued the certificate while simultaneously admitting that the IT team performed the actual retrieval demonstrates that she is not the appropriate person to certify the electronic record under Section 65B(4). This material omission and contradiction fatally undermines the authenticity and reliability of the certificate.

e) Thirdly, the certificate under Section 65B (Ex.PW7/C) suffers from a complete absence of particulars regarding the computer, device, server, or electronic system from which the data was retrieved.

State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act Section 65B(4)(b) specifically mandates that the certificate must give "such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer." The certificate Ex.PW7/C is generic and vague in its contents. It states in perfunctory language: "The given document i.e. Shaadi.com profile details of ID SH01131299, emails dated 22nd April 2022 and 29th April 2022 are information contained in an electronic record which is printed on the paper by me. That the computer output containing the above-said information was produced by the computer which was regularly used by me during that period..." There is no specification whatsoever of: (i) the make, model, or identification details of the computer or server; (ii) the IP address of the server from which emails were retrieved; (iii) the specifications of the email server or archival system; (iv) details of the computer network or system involved; (v) technical details establishing that the computer was operating properly; or (vi) particulars of the device used for extraction and printing of the electronic data. The certificate is devoid of any technical particulars that would enable the Court to ascertain the source, authenticity, and integrity of the electronic record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer (supra) has held that Section 65B(4) mandates identification of the electronic record and description of the manner in which it was produced, along with appropriate particulars of the device involved. The absence of such particulars renders the certificate legally insufficient and DLND010042342022 Page 62 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act inadmissible.

f) Fourthly, during the examination of PW7 and the time of exhibiting the certificate under Section 65B, the learned counsel for the accused raised categoric objections regarding the validity and sufficiency of the certificate. As recorded in the trial proceedings and as submitted in the written arguments, specific objections were taken that: (a) PW7 was not the appropriate person to issue the certificate being from the Legal department and not the IT department; (b) the certificate did not contain particulars of the computer/device/server;

(c) the certificate did not mention the retrieval by the IT team as stated in Ex.PW-7/A; and (d) the certificate failed to satisfy the mandatory conditions prescribed under Section 65B(2) and 65B(4). Despite these specific and well-founded objections, the prosecution failed to cure these defects or produce any supplementary certificate from the IT department or any person having operational control over the relevant computer system. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (supra) has categorically held that oral evidence cannot substitute for the certificate required under Section 65B(4), and that Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement. The failure to address the objections and produce a valid certificate from the competent person renders the electronic documents inadmissible in evidence.

g) Fifthly, as noted during the cross-examination of PW7 dated 13.05.2025, the witness admitted that she had no personal knowledge about the present case and that whatever she deposed was on the basis DLND010042342022 Page 63 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act of documents and profiles, the verification of which she could not establish. PW7 further admitted that she was not a witness to the alleged communications between PW-1 and PW-3 or between PW-1 and the accused. She conceded that the communications between members and relationship managers are confidential as per company norms. When specifically questioned about the retrieval and verification of electronic records, PW7 could not provide satisfactory answers regarding the technical process, the persons involved in retrieval, or the safeguards adopted to ensure integrity of the data. This lack of personal knowledge and technical competence further reinforces the conclusion that PW7 was not the appropriate person to issue the certificate under Section 65B(4).

h) Sixthly, the certificate (Ex.PW7/C) merely makes bald assertions without providing the necessary details required under Section 65B(2) regarding the conditions precedent for admissibility of electronic records. The certificate does not establish: (a) that the computer output was produced by a computer during the period over which it was regularly used to store or process information (Section 65B(2)(a)); (b) specific details about the regular feeding of information into the computer in the ordinary course of activities (Section 65B(2)(b)); (c) particulars showing that throughout the material period the computer was operating properly or, if not, that any malfunction did not affect the electronic record or its accuracy (Section 65B(2)(c)); or (d) how the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from information fed into DLND010042342022 Page 64 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act the computer (Section 65B(2)(d)). The certificate uses templated language without any substantive details, making it impossible for the Court to satisfy itself that the conditions mandated under Section 65B(2) have been met.

i) In light of the aforesaid serious and substantive deficiencies, the certificate under Section 65B (Ex.PW7/C) cannot be regarded as a valid certificate within the meaning of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the certificate under Section 65B(4) is a mandatory precondition for the admissibility of electronic records, and that compliance cannot be substituted by oral evidence or substantial compliance. In the absence of a valid certificate from a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the relevant computer system or device - namely, a person from the IT department having actual control over the servers and email archives - the electronic documents including the emails dated 22.04.2020 and 29.04.2020, and the profile details, are inadmissible in evidence and must be excluded from consideration. The prosecution has failed to prove the electronic records in accordance with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 65B, and consequently, the same cannot form the basis of any finding of guilt against the accused person.

27. Email Spoofing - cannot be ruled out in absence of meta data of the email 27.1. Email spoofing is when someone sends an email that looks like it came from a trusted person or company, but it actually didn't. It is like DLND010042342022 Page 65 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act receiving a letter in the mail with a fake return address - the envelope says it's from your bank, but it was actually sent by a scammer. Criminals use this trick to fool people into sharing passwords, bank details, or clicking on dangerous links that can steal their information or infect their computers with viruses.

27.2. The email system we use every day was designed many years ago without strong security checks, making it surprisingly easy for attackers to fake sender addresses. When you send an email, the system that delivers it (called SMTP) doesn't automatically verify that you are who you claim to be - it's like a postal service that doesn't check if the return address on your letter is real. Anyone with basic computer knowledge can use simple programs or scripts to change the "From" field in an email to make it appear as though it came from someone else, and the email servers that deliver these messages have no built-in way to confirm whether the sender's address is genuine or fake.

27.3. Attackers don't even need to hack into someone's actual email account to pretend to be them - they just need to tell the email server what address to display, and it will show that address to you when you receive the message.

27.4. However, it may be noted that every email contains hidden information called "headers" that show the real journey the email took from sender to recipient, much like a package tracking history. Most people never look at these headers because email programs only show the basic information like who sent it and the subject line, but the headers contain detailed technical data that reveals the truth about where an email DLND010042342022 Page 66 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act really came from. One can think of email headers as the receipt or tracking slip that shows every stop a package made on its way to you - even if the box says it's from Amazon, the tracking slip might show it actually started from a suspicious warehouse in another country. 27.5. In Gmail (used in the present case), open the email, click the three dots in the top right corner, and select "Show original" - this will display all the hidden technical information. Once you open this view, you'll see a lot of technical text, which assists in ascertaining whether the email is actually sent from the email Id mentioned therein or it is spoofed. 27.6. In the emails placed on record, these headers or metadata is missing and as such it cannot be ascertained with certainty that the mail was sent from the same email ID which is mentioned in the "From" filed of the email.

28. Whether Section 88A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would be of some help in presuming that the email was sent from the same email ID which is shown in the printed email filed on record? 28.1. The relevant provision for electronic messages and emails is Section 88A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which was specifically inserted to deal with electronic communications. Section 88A addresses presumptions related to electronic messages forwarded through email servers, and understanding its scope is critical to determining whether it provides any protection against email spoofing. 28.2. Section 88A of the Indian Evidence Act states: "The Court may presume that an electronic message, forwarded by the originator through an electronic mail server to the addressee to whom the message purports DLND010042342022 Page 67 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act to be addressed corresponds with the message as fed into his computer for transmission; but the Court shall not make any presumption as to the person by whom such message was sent."

28.3. The key terms defined under the Information Technology Act, 2000 are: "originator" means a person who sends, generates, stores or transmits any electronic message or causes any electronic message to be sent, generated, stored or transmitted to any other person (but does not include an intermediary), and "addressee" means a person who is intended by the originator to receive the electronic record.

28.4. Section 88A creates only a narrow presumption that the content of an electronic message received by the addressee corresponds with (matches) the message that was fed into the computer for transmission by the originator. In simple terms, the court may presume that the email you received contains the same text and content as what was originally typed and sent from the sender's computer, meaning the message wasn't altered or corrupted during transmission through the mail servers. This presumption is optional, not mandatory, as the section uses the word "may presume" rather than "shall presume," giving courts discretion on whether to apply it.

28.5. The most critical limitation of Section 88A is explicitly stated in the provision itself: the Court shall not make any presumption as to the person by whom such message was sent. This means Section 88A does not create any presumption about the identity of the sender or originator of the email, which is the core issue in email spoofing cases. Additionally, Section 88A does not presume that the message actually reached the addressee or that DLND010042342022 Page 68 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act the addressee read the message, though such presumptions might be drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act (presumptions as to common course of natural events) in appropriate circumstances. 28.6. The presumption under Section 88A does not lead to any presumption that the mail was not spoofed. This is because spoofing primarily involves falsifying the sender's identity, and Section 88A explicitly refuses to presume anything about who sent the message. Even if an email appears to have been sent from a particular email address (like [email protected]), Section 88A does not authorize the court to presume that the owner of that email account actually sent it. 28.7. Burden of Proving the Originator's Identity is always on the prosecution. As Section 88A does not presume who sent the message, the party relying on an email as evidence bears the burden of proving that a specific person was the actual originator of that email. This requirement was emphasized in the landmark case of Abdul Rahaman Kunji vs. The State of West Bengal (2016 CriLJ 1159, Calcutta High Court), where the court held: "It is true that merely sending e-mail from a particular e- mail address would not lead to a presumption that the particular e-mail was sent by the originator, i.e., the person from whose e-mail address a mail emanates. Hacking is not an unknown phenomenon in the world of electronic records. Therefore, the salutary provision in law is that the presumption relating to the genuineness of an electronic message is rebuttable and the Court cannot presume that the message has been sent by a particular person."

28.8. In the Abdul Rahaman Kunji (supra), the court accepted the emails DLND010042342022 Page 69 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act as evidence only after the prosecution proved the accused's identity as the originator through additional evidence. The witnesses testified that the accused disclosed his email identities and passwords in their presence at police headquarters, and the emails were downloaded from his account and printed while witnesses signed the seizure documents. The accused also failed to provide any specific explanation about his email accounts, passwords, or the contents of the emails in his statement. The said case illustrates that proving the originator requires independent evidence beyond the email itself, such as: disclosure of passwords or access credentials by the accused, forensic analysis of IP addresses and device information, witness testimony about who had access to the email account, circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the content and timing of the emails, and expert evidence regarding header analysis and authentication protocols.

28.9. Thus, if the prosecution wants to use an email as evidence in court, it cannot simply present the email and rely on Section 88A to establish that the claimed sender actually sent it. It must produce additional evidence demonstrating that the person whose email address appears in the "From" field was the actual originator, which may include testimony from the sender acknowledging they sent it, digital forensic evidence tracing the email to the sender's device or IP address, authentication records showing the email passed SPF, DKIM, and DMARC checks, or evidence of the sender's exclusive access to the email account during the relevant period. 28.10. At this point it is important to distinguish between admissibility of an email (whether it can be presented in court) and proof of authenticity DLND010042342022 Page 70 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act (whether it genuinely came from the claimed sender). Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act governs admissibility of electronic records, requiring that printouts or copies of emails be accompanied by a certificate confirming certain technical conditions about how the record was produced. Even if an email satisfies Section 65B and is admissible, presumption under Section 88A does not prove who sent it. 28.11. In the Abdul Rahaman Kunji case, the court separately addressed both issues, holding that the emails were admissible under Section 65B because they were properly downloaded and printed by police witnesses, but emphasized that admissibility alone was insufficient--the prosecution still needed to prove the accused was the originator before relying on Section 88A's presumption about message content. 28.12. Thus, courts in India have explicitly acknowledged email spoofing as a real threat in their interpretation of Section 88A Indian Evidence Act. The Calcutta High Court in Abdul Rahaman Kunji categorically stated:

"Hacking is not an unknown phenomenon in the world of electronic records. Therefore, the salutary provision in law is that the presumption relating to the genuineness of an electronic message is rebuttable and the Court cannot presume that the message has been sent by a particular person."

28.13. This means that courts need to scrutinize email evidence carefully and will not automatically assume that an email received in an account came from the person whose name or email address appears in the sender field.

28.14. To summarize, section 88A Indian Evidence Act creates a limited, optional, and rebuttable presumption that an email's content corresponds DLND010042342022 Page 71 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act to what was transmitted, but explicitly does not presume who sent the email. This means Section 88A does not create any presumption against spoofing--the possibility that an email was sent by someone impersonating the claimed sender remains fully open. The party relying on an email must prove the originator's identity through independent evidence, such as access to passwords, IP address analysis, authentication records, or witness testimony. Courts recognize email spoofing as a real phenomenon and will not automatically accept that an email came from the person whose address appears in the sender field. Proving email authenticity requires compliance with Section 65B for admissibility, satisfaction of Section 88A's limited presumption regarding message content (if applicable), and additional evidence establishing the sender's identity beyond any legal presumption.

28.15. When an email is presented in court, parties should examine email headers for authentication failures, domain mismatches, and suspicious routing paths as evidence of possible spoofing. They should demand proof of the originator's identity beyond the email itself, such as device forensics, server logs, or witness testimony. Expert witnesses can be called to explain email authentication protocols (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) and analyze whether the email passed or failed security checks. Section 88A explicitly prohibits presuming who sent the message, placing the burden on the party relying on the email.

29. Record summoned from Google LLC, but witness had to be dropped due to time constraint:

29.1. As stated earlier, the prosecution's case rests entirely upon the DLND010042342022 Page 72 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act alleged derogatory emails sent through the Gmail server operated by Google LLC, USA. The entire edifice of the prosecution case depended upon establishing the authenticity and genuineness of these electronic records to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

However, despite the sincere and sustained efforts of this Court to procure these critical records, circumstances beyond judicial control prevented their acquisition, ultimately weakening the foundation upon which the prosecution sought to build its case.

29.2. From the very outset, this Court recognized the centrality of the electronic evidence and made every conceivable effort to summon the authentic records from Google LLC, USA. The journey toward obtaining this evidence began on 05.07.2025, when the Court noted that summons issued to Google LLC, USA had been received back with a report indicating delivery to Google India Pvt. Ltd. When Learned Counsel for Google India Pvt. Ltd. appeared before the Court, she clarified that Google India Pvt. Ltd. has no control over Google LLC USA, which is a distinct and separate corporate entity with no connection to the India office. She further provided the Court with the proper address and email identification of Google LLC in the United States for accurate service of process. 29.3. Consequently, an application was moved by the Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor and the Court on 15.07.2025 allowed the said application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed that summons be issued to Google LLC to produce the relevant records through a witness. The Court specifically observed that since the information regarding the emails was received from Google LLC USA, DLND010042342022 Page 73 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act the witness from that entity was essential to prove the electronic records in accordance with the requirements of the Evidence Act. 29.4. However, the process of serving summons upon a foreign entity located in the United States proved to be far more complex than anticipated. On 30.07.2025, when the matter came up for hearing, it was reported that the summons issued to Google LLC, USA had been served at a Google office at Connaught Place in Delhi, but the receiving did not bear any stamp of the office to ascertain where exactly the summons had been served. The Court immediately directed that the previous order be recomplied with and that summons be also sent through the email ID provided by Ld. Counsel for Google India. At this stage, the Court made it abundantly clear that in case the witness from Google LLC remained unserved or did not appear on the next date, then the prosecution evidence would stand closed after the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer.

29.5. By 05.08.2025, despite fresh summons being issued, there was still no response from Google LLC, USA. The Court once again directed that summons be issued afresh in terms of the previous orders. It was on this date that Ld. Counsel for the complainant filed a copy of the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CRL.M.A. 21311/2025, wherein this Court was directed to complete the trial within a period of three months. The Court noted this directive on the top of the file, signifying the urgency and time-bound nature of the proceedings. 29.6. On 12.08.2025, after all other witnesses in the present case had been examined and discharged, only the witness from Google LLC remained.

State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act The Court noted with concern that despite repeated summons being issued to Google LLC having an address in California, USA, the same could not be served upon the company. The process was being served on some individual without company stamp, phone number, or other details necessary to verify proper service. Recognizing that the trial was to be concluded within three months, the Court proposed that this witness might have to be dropped.

It was at this critical juncture that Learned Counsel for the complainant, after seeking some time and consulting with the complainant telephonically, acknowledged the difficulty and submitted that one opportunity be awarded for the summoning of this witness through the Station House Officer (SHO) and Deputy Commissioner of Police concerned. The Court, in its final attempt to secure the evidence, acceded to this request and directed that process be issued to Google LLC through the SHO and DCP concerned, to be served upon any Nodal Officer of the said company present in India as a last opportunity to the prosecution. The Court expressly warned that failing this, the witness would be dropped as the trial was to be concluded within three months, which would not be possible if the service had to be processed through the Ministry of Home Affairs or Ministry of External Affairs.

29.7. On 02.09.2025, Ms. Aishwarya Kane, Ld Counsel for Google LLC, filed a memo of appearance. However, even this development did not lead to the desired outcome. She informed the Court that summons in this case had been served upon the local liaison office of Google LLC, which deals with YouTube and not with matters pertaining to Google Mail. She sought DLND010042342022 Page 75 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act time to furnish complete details in writing within three days. 29.8. On 08.09.2025, the written response submitted on behalf of the India Liaison Office for Google LLC delivered the final blow to the efforts to secure the electronic evidence. The response stated unequivocally that records pertaining to the emails dated 21.04.2022, 22.04.2022, and 29.04.2022, which were sent or received using the Gmail service, were not accessible to the India Liaison Office of Google LLC. The response further clarified that the India Liaison Office was not the relevant office for receiving communication with respect to the Gmail service. 29.9. The written response identified that the relevant person for service of summons with respect to proving the records pertaining to the Gmail service was the Custodian of Records of Google LLC, located at 1600, Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA, 94043, USA. Most critically, it was stated that service upon the Custodian of Records was required to be in accordance with the manner prescribed for service of summons upon a foreign witness.

29.10. Along with this response, an annexure containing a copy of an order passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, Patiala House Courts was filed, which revealed that service of summons upon a foreign witness through the Ministry of External Affairs would take a minimum of three months. This timeline made it practically impossible to secure the witness's attendance and testimony before the deadline mandated by the Hon'ble High Court. Even IO in his deposition dated 30.7.2025 admitted that "there is no likelihood of anyone from Google LLC, USA coming forward to make deposition before the Court"

State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act 29.11. Thus, this Court found itself caught between two imperatives: on one hand, the duty to ensure that all relevant evidence is brought on record to arrive at a just conclusion, and on the other hand, the binding direction of the Hon'ble High Court to dispose of the matter within the limited timeframe of three months. Given the written response filed by the India Liaison Office for Google LLC and the reference to similar proceedings before Learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, Patiala House Courts, it became abundantly clear that service of the witness from Google LLC, USA could not be effected within the timeline fixed by the Hon'ble High Court.

29.12. In view of the reply and the annexure thereto, and recognizing that the service of this witness could not be effected within the timeline fixed by the Hon'ble High Court for the disposal of the present case, as the case was to be disposed of within the time frame of three months, this Court was constrained to drop the witness from Google LLC on 08.09.2025. All remaining witnesses having already been examined, the prosecution evidence was closed on the same date.

29.13. The consequence of this unfortunate but unavoidable situation is that the authentic electronic records from Google LLC, USA--the very foundation upon which the prosecution case was built--could not be procured. These records, had they been obtained and properly proved through the testimony of the Custodian of Records from Google LLC, could have established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and proved the prosecution case. Instead, no authentic electronic record could be obtained from Google LLC, which operates the Gmail server DLND010042342022 Page 77 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act used in sending the alleged derogatory emails. 29.14. This outcome was not for want of effort on the part of this Court, which made every possible attempt within its judicial powers to secure the evidence. Rather, it was the result of the intersection of three factors: first, the technical and legal complexities involved in serving summons upon a foreign corporate entity located in the United States; second, the time required by the established legal channels for such service, which would have taken a minimum of three months through the Ministry of External Affairs; and third, the binding directive of the Hon'ble High Court to conclude the trial within three months in response to the complainant's own repeated applications for time-bound disposal. 29.15. The irony of the situation is not lost upon this Court--that the very complainant who sought expeditious disposal of the case through repeated applications before the Hon'ble High Court is now confronted with a situation where the time-bound disposal has precluded the procurement of the most critical evidence necessary to establish the prosecution case. Learned Counsel for the complainant acknowledged this difficulty on 12.08.2025 when, after consulting with the complainant, he acceded to one final opportunity for service through the SHO and DCP. However, even this last-ditch effort proved unsuccessful given the practical impossibility of serving the proper custodian of records in the United States within the remaining timeframe.

29.16. Thus, through no fault of the Court or the prosecution, but rather due to the practical realities of international service of process and the constraints of time, the authentic electronic evidence that formed the DLND010042342022 Page 78 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act backbone of the prosecution case remained beyond the reach of this Court, ultimately compromising the evidentiary foundation upon which the case rested.

30. Final observations In light of the aforesaid discussion, the findings are summarized as under:

30.1. Regarding Electronic Evidence- eMails not proved:

a) The electronic evidence produced by the complainant (PW-1) is inadmissible as no valid certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act was furnished, and only photocopies of emails and screenshots were produced without the original electronic devices.

b) Despite specific requests from the Investigating Officer, the complainant deliberately withheld his laptop and mobile phone from forensic examination, offering the untenable excuse of personal and official data on these devices. This non-production of original electronic devices, coupled with the complainant's technical expertise as an Engineer in Electronic Communication, raises serious doubts about the authenticity of the electronic evidence.

c) The certificate under Section 65B produced by PW-7 (Ms. Usha Vinod Kumar of Shaadi.com) is defective and inadmissible as she is not a person having operational control over the IT infrastructure, and the certificate lacks essential technical particulars including model, make, and identification details of the computer/server.

d) The certificate produced by PW-7 contradicts her own letter DLND010042342022 Page 79 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act dated 25.04.2022 wherein she admitted that emails were retrieved by the IT team, yet no person from the IT department issued the mandatory Section 65B certificate.

e) No electronic device from any source--complainant, accused, or Shaadi.com--was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination of veracity and genuineness, despite this being a critical requirement in a case based entirely on electronic evidence.

f) The Investigating Officer admitted that he accepted documents from Shaadi.com at face value without conducting independent verification or forensic examination. 30.2. Regarding the Email Account and Identity of Sender:

a) There is nothing on record to definitively establish that the accused was the originator of the allegedly offensive emails, and the possibility of email spoofing cannot be ruled out. Section 88A of the Indian Evidence Act explicitly provides that the Court shall not make any presumption as to the person by whom an electronic message was sent.

b) Despite repeated summons and notices issued by this Court to Google LLC, USA, seeking authentic electronic records from the Custodian of Records, no representative appeared, and the critical electronic evidence that could have established the identity of the sender beyond doubt, could not be procured.

30.3. Regarding Contradictions and Inconsistencies:

a) The complainant's testimony suffers from material contradictions regarding when he first learned the real name of the DLND010042342022 Page 80 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act accused, giving three different versions during examination and cross- examination.

b) PW-3 (Bappa Ghoshal) confused the Shaadi.com profile IDs and could not recollect crucial details like mobile numbers, email IDs, or IP addresses during cross-examination. He admitted that in his presence, the complainant never sent any email or had telephonic conversation with the accused. Rather he went on to depose as under:

"Q: I put it to you that the email IDs i.e., [email protected] and [email protected] belonged to Mr. Sushant Kumar Mandal. Ans: Yes. These are the emails of Mr. Sushant Kumar. Mandal and on these emails caste remarks were sent by the said lady."

By deposing that both the email IDs i.e., [email protected] and [email protected] belonged to Mr. Sushant Kumar Mandal, he demolished the case of the prosecution.

c) There is nothing on record to establish that the profile ID SH01131299 was initially in the name of "Emon Maitryee Dutta Das"

and subsequently changed to "Somkanya Das." The documents provided by Shaadi.com contain no evidence of any name change in the profile.

d) The complainant's profile on Shaadi.com mentions his caste as "Hindu Other" and nowhere mentions that he belongs to Namasudra caste or Scheduled Caste category. The prosecution has failed to establish how the accused came to know about the complainant's caste status when this information was not disclosed in his profile and he never had any direct communication with her.

e) The Call Detail Records (CDRs) obtained from various DLND010042342022 Page 81 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act telecom service providers were for the period March-April 2022, whereas the alleged offence occurred in April 2020, rendering these CDRs completely irrelevant to the case.

f) No motive has been established for the accused to send allegedly derogatory emails to the complainant. The complainant's own testimony shows that he rejected the profile at the outset and instructed his relationship manager not to follow up, making the alleged subsequent conduct inexplicable and improbable.

g) PW-7 admitted that before the notice under Section 91 Cr.PC was received, there was no complaint from Relationship Manager Bappa Ghosal or otherwise by complainant given to her or to Shaadi.com.

31. Conclusion Having examined the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, and having applied the well-established principles of criminal jurisprudence, this court is constrained to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

The cornerstone of criminal justice is that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused. In the present case, the prosecution's case suffers from multiple fatal infirmities that create insurmountable reasonable doubt. The electronic evidence, which forms the entire foundation of the prosecution case, is wholly inadmissible due to non-compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The deliberate withholding of original electronic devices by the complainant, despite his technical expertise as a communication DLND010042342022 Page 82 of 83 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act engineer, coupled with the absence of forensic examination, renders the prosecution's evidence unreliable and raises suspicion. The failure to establish the identity of the actual sender of the allegedly offensive emails, combined with the admission that the email account was not registered in the accused's name, creates fundamental doubt about whether the accused was the originator of these communications. The possibility of email spoofing or fabrication cannot be ruled out, and Section 88A of the Evidence Act prohibits any presumption regarding the identity of the sender. The inability to procure authentic electronic records from Google LLC, despite the Court's sincere and sustained efforts, has left a critical evidentiary gap that cannot be filled by inadmissible photocopies and questionable certificates.

The contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, the defects in investigation, the absence of any established motive, and the complete failure to establish how the accused learned of the complainant's caste status collectively create such serious doubt that conviction would be unsafe and contrary to established principles of criminal jurisprudence. In criminal law, the benefit of doubt is not a mere formality but a fundamental principle designed to prevent miscarriage of justice. Where, as in the present case, the prosecution's evidence is riddled with infirmities, contradictions, and procedural violations, and where the very foundation of the case--the electronic evidence--is inadmissible and unverified, the only course open to this Court is to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused.

State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das SC No. 213/2022 FIR No. 142/2022 PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act

32. Order:

Accordingly, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused Somkanya Chandreyee Das beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The accused is entitled to acquittal and is hereby acquitted of the charge framed against her. The accused is directed to furnish fresh bail bonds under Section 437A Cr.P.C. within two weeks from today.

A copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the complainant and the accused.

File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance. Announced in the open Court on 7th day of November 2025 (Saurabh Partap Singh Laler) ASJ-05, New Delhi District Patiala House Courts, New Delhi 7.11.2025 SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2025.11.07 LALER 17:04:50 +0530