Bangalore District Court
North East Cen Crime Police Station vs Mahesh V on 13 August, 2025
KABC030004542023
Presented on : 04-01-2023
Registered on : 04-01-2023
Decided on : 13-08-2025
Duration : 2 years, 7 months, 9 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XLV ADDL.CJM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 13th day of August 2025.
Present: Shri Ganapati Bhat
B.Sc., LL.B(Spl.). L.L.M.
XLV Addl. C.J.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/Sec. 392 BNSS.
Case No. : C.C.No.219/2023
Date of Offence : 13-06-2022 to 10-08-2022
Name of complainant : State by North East CEN
Police Station, Bengaluru.
(By Learned Sr. APP)
Name of accused : Mahesh V.
S/o Vasudev,
aged 30 years,
R/o No.193,
Vivekananda Nagar,
T.Narasimpura, Mysuru Dist.
(By Shri M.K.Venkatesh, Advocate)
2 C.C.No.219/2023
Offences complained of: U/s.66(E) & 67(A) of I.T.
Act.
Date of filing of charge 03-11-2022
sheet:
Date of recording of 07-04-2025
evidence:
Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Accused is acquitted
Date of Order 13-08-2025.
JUDGMENT
Inspector of Police, North East CEN Crime Police has filed charge sheet against accused above named for the offences punishable under Sections 66(E) & 67(A) of Information Technology Act.
2. The brief facts of this case are as follows;
On 15-10-2020 and 18-10-2020, the accused has ordered for SPY camera in Amazon website. On 21-4-2021, the accused has accessed the bedroom of C.W.1 and captured the dress changing photos of C.W.1. He has stored the said photos in his laptop and mobile. On 13-6-2022, at about 5.02 p.m, the accused has created the fake instagram account 3 C.C.No.219/2023 namely, ra.ksha8997 and send a message to C.W.1 to her instagram account namely, meghana_b_n at 9.00 p.m. He has threatened her by showing her nude photos and videos and demanding her to chat with him. The accused has further created another fake account on 16-6-2022 at 11.25 a.m. namely, meghana_b_n1 and threatened C.W.1 that he is going to transmit the said video in the social media. He has uploaded the sample video for the duration of 0.33 minutes. Hence, he has committed the offences punishable under Sec.66(E) and 67(A) of I.T. Act. C.W.1 has given complaint in the Police Station and FIR was registered on the basis of it. After conclusion of investigation, the I.O. has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sec.66(E) and 67(A) of I.T.Act.
4 C.C.No.219/2023
3. The accused was arrested during crime stage and he was enlarged on bail. After filing of this charge sheet, cognizance of alleged offence is taken and the accused has appeared after service of summons. The copy of charge sheet is furnished to him under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and charge is framed. Accused has not pleaded guilt of alleged offence and he claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution has got examined 6 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.6 and got marked 21 documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. M.O.1 to 7 are identified. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. The accused has denied the incriminating evidence against him and he has not led any defence evidence.
5 C.C.No.219/2023
5. On the basis of charge sheet allegation, the following points arise for consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that on 15-10-2020 and 18-10-2020, the accused has ordered the SPY camera in Amazon website and on 21-4-2022 he has accessed the private room of the C.W.1 and captured the dress changing photos of C.W.1 and same is stored in the laptop and the mobile of the accused and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 66(E) of I.T. Act ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that on 13-6-2022, at about 5.02 p.m., the accused has created the fake instagram account namely, ra.ksha8997 and send a message to C.W.1 to her instagram account-meghana_b_n at 9.00 p.m. and threatened her to upload her nude photos and videos in the social media and thereby demanded her to chat with him and further he has created another fake account on 16-6-2022, at 11.25 a.m., namely, meghana_b_n1 and threatened C.W1 to transmit the said photos and videos in the social media and uploaded the sample video of duration of 0.33 minutes without the consent of C.W.1 with an intention to outrage C.W.1 and defamed her and thereby the accused has committed the 6 C.C.No.219/2023 offence punishable under Section 67(A) of I.T. Act ?
3. What order ?
6. Heard arguments of learned Sr.APP and learned counsel for accused. Perused oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. The following are findings to above points.
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : In the Negative Point No.3 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1 and 2 :Since these points are interlinked, they are discussed together to avoid repetition of facts.
In support of its case, the prosecution has got examined 6 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.6. In this case, C.W.1 being the complainant-cum-victim has examined P.W.1. In her examination-in-chief, she 7 C.C.No.219/2023 has deposed that someone has fixed the camera in the room to capture her dress changing photos. She has further stated that someone has sent the said photos to instagram account of her from a fake instagram account. She has further stated that she don't know who has fixed the camera for capturing her photos. She has turned hostile in this case. The learned APP has cross-examined the said P.W.1. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 has denied the suggestion that the accused has created fake instagram account and threatened her to upload the photos and videos. She has denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely to help the accused. In the cross-examination by the advocate for accused, she has stated that that she has no personal information as to whether the accused has related to this case or not. She has admitted that she has not stated the name of the accused in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. She has admitted that she don't know who 8 C.C.No.219/2023 has committed the alleged offence. She has admitted that she has not taken any receipts for the xerox document produced in this case from the Xerox shop Cancard. She has further admitted that there is no mentioning of the instruments from which the documents are copied in Ex.P2. From her evidence, it is clear that she has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. She has denied the suggestion that the accused has committed the offence. Therefore, the victim-cum-complainant has turned completely hostile in this case.
8. C.W.15 is examined as P.W.2 in this case. He was deputed to find the accused. Since the arrest of the accused is not in much dispute, this witness is a formal witness in this case.
9. C.W.18 is examined as P.W.3 in this case. In the examination-in-chief, P.W.3 has stated that she 9 C.C.No.219/2023 has assisted in conducting the panchanama. She has further stated that she has copied the purchase bill of SPY camera and annexed the copy of the said bill to the case file. She has further stated that she has taken the print out regarding the CDR and the document relating to purchase details of the SPY camera. She has further stated that she has given certificate under Sec.65-B to the said documents.
10. C.W.17 is examined as P.W.4 in this case. In the examination-in-chief, he has stated that he has received the information from the instagram about who has created the said instagram. He has taken the print out and has given the certificate under Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act. In the cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that he has not given any print out in this case. This witness is also formal witness.
10 C.C.No.219/2023
11. C.W.14 is examined as P.W.5 in this case. He is the Investigating Officer in this case. He has deposed about how he has conducted the investigation in this case. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that he has requested concerned to furnish the informations about who has created the said instagram account. He has further stated that he has deputed C.W.15 to find out the accused. He has further stated that he has arrested the accused and has taken the accused to the police custody. He has further stated that on 12-8-2022, he has requested the instagram authority to furnish the informations and further requested to give certificate under Sec.65- B of Indian Evidence Act. He has further stated that on 13-8-2022, he has recorded the statement of the accused. He has further stated that the accused has given statement that he has kept two mobiles, one laptop, one sim card and the purchase bill of the mobiles and the SPY camera in his house situated in 11 C.C.No.219/2023 Mysore and he has burnt one mobile phone used for the commission of the offence. He has further stated that the accused has thrown the burnt phone in Kaveri river at Srirangapatna. He has further stated that he has conducted the panchanama of the place where the accused has thrown the burnt mobile phone in Kaveri river in the presence of C.W.2 and C.W.3 He has further stated that he has seized two Jio sims, one Airtel sim, one Iphone, one Dell laptop, one charger of SPY camera, one sandisc memory card, one Tansen memory card, one pen drive, purchase bill of Redmi mobile and prepared the PF report and sent it to the court. He has identified the said articles which were shown to him during the course of examination-in- chief. He has further stated that he has extracted the mirror images in front of C.W.7 and C.W.8. He has stated that he has requested the CID-SP to extract the forensic datas in the said electronic gadgets. He has further stated that he has send the extracted datas to 12 C.C.No.219/2023 the FSL for forensic investigation. He has further recorded the re-statement of the accused. He has further stated that he has obtained the delivery bill and delivery information of the SPY camera and obtained the certificate under Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act. He has further stated that he has sought information from the Nodal Officer regarding the CDR of the mobile involved in this case and he has obtained the said informations as well as certificate under Sec.65-B of Indian evidence Act. He has further stated that he has received the contact details of the said sim cards and certificate under Sec.65-B of Indian evidence Act. He has further stated that he has downloaded the informations given by the Amazon company and also annexed the said documents with certificate under Sec.65-B of Indian evidence Act. He has further stated that he has received the CDR informations of the mobile and has taken the print out. He has stated that he has given certificate under 13 C.C.No.219/2023 Sec.65-B of Indian evidence Act. He has further stated that he has requested Hon'ble 7th ACJM to record the statement of the witness under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. In the cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion of the counsel for the accused that he has not conducted proper investigation in this case. In the the evidence of P.W.5, he has stated how he has conducted investigation in this case.
12. C.W.23 is examined as P.W.6 in this case. He is an Investigating officer who has later furnished the FSL report. This witness is also formal witness in this case.
13. In this case, the prosecution has examined only C.W.1, 15, 18, 17, 14 and 23 as their witnesses. Inspite of repeated issuance of the summons, the witnesses C.W.2 to C.W.13, C.W.16, C.W.19 and C.W.20 are not turned. Hence, the said witnesses 14 C.C.No.219/2023 i.e., C.W.2 to C.W.13, C.W.16, C.W.19 and C.W.20 are dropped. In this case, the complainant-cum-victim turned completely hostile. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of C.W.1 by the learned APP. In this case, the complainant herself turned hostile and stated that the accused has not committed the offence. Hence, the testimony of C.W.1 goes against the case of the prosecution. The other witnesses are police officials and police officers. The independent witnesses and pancha witnesses are dropped in this case. The I.O. has stated only about the manner of investigation. Except these witnesses, no independent and cogent witnesses are examined in this case. Therefore, though the prosecution has serious allegations, it is failed to establish the guilt of the accused by adducing reliable oral evidence.
14. In this case, the prosecution has produced some documentary evidences like printout of screen shots of 15 C.C.No.219/2023 messages. In the certificates under Sec.65-B of Indian evidence Act i.e., Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 given to the printout of screen shots of the messages, the instruments used for taking such print outs are not specified. They are not complied with the mandatory provisions of Sec.65-B of Indian evidence Act. Therefore, those documents are not admissible in evidence.
15. In the said certificate, there is no mentioning of the instruments which are used for printing the documents produced in this case. Further, there is no mandatory declaration provided under Sec.65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act.
"65B. Admissibility of electronic records.
(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any records. information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer 16 C.C.No.219/2023 (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible. (2)The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:-
(a)the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer;
(b)during the said period, information of the kind 17 C.C.No.219/2023 contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities;
(c)throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d)the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.
(3)Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as 18 C.C.No.219/2023 mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether-
(a)by a combination of computers operating over that period; or
(b)by different computers operating in succession over that period; or
(c)by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or
(d)in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly.
(4)In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a 19 C.C.No.219/2023 certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say,-
(a)identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b)giving 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;(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate,and purporting to 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 (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.20 C.C.No.219/2023
(5) For the purposes of this section,-
(a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment;
(b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities;
(c)a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment. Explanation. -
For the purposes of this section any reference to 21 C.C.No.219/2023 information being derived from other information shall be a reference to its being derived therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other process."
In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal on ruling reported in AIR 2020 SC 4908, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
"But Section 65B(1) starts with a nonobstante clause excluding the application of the other provisions and it makes the certification, a precondition for admissibility. While doing so, it does not talk about relevancy. In a way, Sections 65A and 65B, if read together, mixup both proof and admissibility, but not talk about relevancy. Section 65A refers to the procedure prescribed in Section 65B, for the purpose of proving the contents of electronic records, but Section 65B speaks entirely about the preconditions for admissibility. As a result, Section 65B places admissibility as the first or the outermost 22 C.C.No.219/2023 check post, capable of turning away even at the border, any electronic evidence, without any enquiry, if the conditions stipulated therein are not fulfilled".
As discussed above, the prosecution has produced the documents, but the said documents have not complied the certificate under Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, they are not admissible in evidence.
16. In this case, the main witness i.e., C.W.1 who claims to be the victim has turned fully hostile. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 has stated that the accused has not committed the offence. She has further denied that the accused has sent the message and committed the theft of data. Hence, inspite of repeated issuance of summons, C.W.2 to C.W.13, C.W.16, C.W.19 and C.W.20 have not appeared. Hence, they are dropped. 23 C.C.No.219/2023
17. P.W.5 is an Investigating Officer. He has stated about how he has conducted the investigation in this case. Her evidence is not sufficient to convict the accused. Further as discussed above, the certificate under Sec.65-B of the Indian Evidence Act is provided for the documents like screen shots and messages, bank statement etc. Hence, the I.O. has not complied the mandatory requirement of the said provision in so far as the said documents. The prosecution has failed to adduce the cogent evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The alleged victim-cum-complainant turned hostile in this case. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence I answer point No.1 and 2 in the Negative.
18. Point No.3: For the reasons stated and findings given on point No.1 and 2, following is: 24 C.C.No.219/2023
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.,/371(1) of B.N.S.S., the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 66(E) and 67(A) of Information Technology Act.
M.O.1 to M.O.7 are ordered to be sold in the public auction after completion of the appeal period. Before public auction I.O. shall delete all the datas in the M.Os permanently.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by the accused and surety stands canceled.
(Typed to my dictation by the stenographer directly on computer, revised, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 13 th day of August 2025).
(Ganapati Bhat) XLV Addl. CJM., Bengaluru.
25 C.C.No.219/2023ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution :-
P.W.1, Meghana B.N., P.W.2, Raghu A.C., P.W.3, Smt.Saraswathi Gerade, P.W.4, Amith Amathe, P.W.5, Santhosh Ram, P.W.6, Mallikarjun M.;
List of exhibits marked for prosecution :-
Ex.P1, Complaint,
Ex.P2, 65-B certificate,
Ex.P3, Messages,
Ex.P4, 164 statement,
Ex.P5, Report,
Ex.P6, Print outs,
Ex.P7, 65-B certificate,
Ex.P8, Requisition,
Ex.P9, Mahazar,
Ex.P10, Tax invoice,
Ex.P11, Spot mahazar,
Ex.P12, Forensic mirror imaging Mahazar,
Ex.P13, Data extract,
Ex.P14, 65-B certificate,
Ex.P15, Invoice,
Ex.P16, 65-B certificate,
Ex.P17, FSL report,
Ex.P18, FSL report,
Ex.P19, 65-B certificate,
Ex.P20, CDR printout,
Ex.P21, 65-B certificate,
26 C.C.No.219/2023
List of material objects :
M.O.1, Mobile phone,
M.O.2, Mobile phone,
M.O.3, Dell laptop hard disk,
M.O.4, SPY camera,
M.O.5, Memory cards,
M.O.6, San disk pen drive,
M.O.7, Samsung Galaxy mobile phone,;
List of Witnesses examined for defence:- NIL List of documents marked for defence:- NIL XLV Addl. CJM., Bengaluru 27 C.C.No.219/2023 13-8-2025 (Order pronounced in the Open Court vide separate judgment) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.,/371(1) of B.N.S.S., the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 66(E) and 67(A) of Information Technology Act.
M.O.1 to M.O.7 are ordered to be sold in the public auction after completion of the appeal period. Before public auction I.O.
shall delete all the datas in the M.Os permanently.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by the accused and surety stands canceled.
13-8-2025 XLV ACJM, Bengaluru.
28 C.C.No.219/2023