Bangalore District Court
State By Koramangala vs Was In Love With C.W.1 And Parents Of on 3 January, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 3rd day of January 2022
Present: Shri Anand T Chavan, B.Com., LL.B(Spl.).
I Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/s. 355 Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.31370/2018
Date of Offence : 1-1-2016 to 30-1-2018
Name of complainant : State by Koramangala
Police Station, Bengaluru.
(By Learned Sr. APP)
Name of accused : Shubhakar G.N.
S/o Narayanachari,
aged 28 years,
Ganapathi Katte,
Belavinakodige village,
Koppa taluk,
Chikkamagalur district.
( By Sri. B.S.Naveen Rao, Advocate)
Offences complained off: U/s.354(D), 509, 506 of IPC
R/w Sec.66(E), 67(A), 71 of
I.T. Act
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is acquitted
Date of Order : 3-1-2022
2 C.C.No.31370/2018
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, Koramangala P.S has filed charge sheet against accused for offences punishable under Sections 354(D), 509, 506 of IPC R/w Sec.66(E), 67(A), 71 of Information Technology Act.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case are that accused was in love with C.W.1 and parents of C.W.1 refused their marriage. Thereafter parents of C.W.1 warned accused to stay away from C.W.1. Thereafter, accused threatened C.W.1 to marry him or else he would upload her obscene photos to face book to outrage modesty. When C.W.1 did not agree for said proposal, accused created a fake face book account in her name as "Jayakala Gowda Koppa"
and uploaded her obscene photos in said account by using his mobile from his house situated at 2 nd floor, building No.115, Mathrushri Nilaya, 2 nd 'F' cross, 8th block, Koramangala. Further accused sent friend request from said fake face book account 3 C.C.No.31370/2018 by uploading obscene contents. Thus accused violated privacy of C.W.1 and posted aforesaid sexual explicit content in her name by committing misrepresentation and he outraged her modesty. Thereafter, on 9-2-2018 C.W.1 lodged first information before Jayapura PS Chikkamagalur which was registered by them in their PS Crime No.5/2018 and FIR is issued. Thereafter it shows that the case is transferred to Koramangala PS on the ground of jurisdiction and said police registered the case in their PS Crime No.279/2018. After completion of investigation, I.O. filed charge sheet against accused for above offences.
3. Accused was arrested during crime stage and he is enlarged on bail. After filing of this charge sheet, cognizance of above offences is taken and summons is issued to accused. Accused appeared before court in pursuant to coercive steps and he is enlarged on bail. Copy of charge sheet furnished to 4 C.C.No.31370/2018 accused u/s 207 of Cr.P.C and charge is framed. Accused has not pleaded guilt of alleged offences and he has claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 1 witness as P.W.1 and got marked 2 documents as per Ex.P1 & Ex.P2. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence against accused except P.W.1.
5. On the basis of charge sheet allegation, the following points arose for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that accused has committed offence punishable under section 354(D) of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that accused has committed offence punishable under section 509 of IPC?5 C.C.No.31370/2018
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that accused has committed offence punishable under section 506 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that accused has committed offence punishable under section 66(E) of Information technology Act?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that accused has committed offence punishable under section 67(A)of Information technology Act?
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that accused has committed offence punishable under section 71 of Information Technology Act?
7. What order ?
6. Heard arguments. Perused oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. The following are findings to above points.
Point No.1 to 6 : In the Negative Point No.7 : As per final order, for the following:
6 C.C.No.31370/2018
REASONS
7. Point No.1 to 6:- In support of its case, prosecution has got examined the victim-cum-first informant/C.W.1 Jayakala D/o Ramachari as P.W.1. The said witness has turned hostile by testifying that her obscene photo was illegally uploaded by somebody in face book, but it was immediately deleted. She has further testified that in that regard she had been to Jayapura Police Station, she explained the matter and signed the document as per request of said police. She has further testified that till today she does not know who had uploaded her private photos in face book and she has not given any further statement before police. She has identified her signatures on Ex.P1 first information as per Ex.P1(a). Though P.W.1 is treated as hostile and cross-examined at length by learned Senior APP, nothing worth while is elicited from her mouth in order to prove the guilt of 7 C.C.No.31370/2018 accused. She has denied entire prosecution case in her cross-examination and she has also denied to have given statement before I.O. as per Ex.P2. Hence, in view of hostile evidence of aforesaid principal witness, rest of the prosecution witnesses are dropped, as no purpose of prosecution will be served by examining said witnesses. For these reasons it is incumbent to this court to hold that absolutely there is no evidence to prove that accused has illegally uploaded obscene photos of C.W.1 containing sexually explicit material, he sent friend request to her relatives, he outraged her modesty and thereby he has committed alleged offences. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused is guilty of offences u/s 354(D), 509, 506 of IPC R/w Sec.66(E), 67(A), 71 of Information Technology Act. Hence, Point No.1 to 6 are answered in Negative.
8 C.C.No.31370/2018
8. Point No.7: -
For the reasons stated and findings given on point No.1 to 6 , following is:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 354(D), 509, 506 of IPC R/w Sec.66(E), 67(A), 71 of Information Technology Act.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by accused shall continue for a period of two months from the date of this order and thereafter same shall stand canceled automatically.
Seized Samsung mobile phone of accused under P.F. No.120/2018 shall be returned to him after expiry of appeal period.
( Typed by me directly on computer, revised, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 3 rd day of January 2022).
(Anand T Chavan) st 1 Addl. CMM., Bengaluru ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution :-
P.W.1, R.Jayakala;9 C.C.No.31370/2018
List of exhibits marked for prosecution :-
Ex.P1, First information report, Ex.P1(a), Signature of P.W.1, Ex.P2, Statement of P.W.1;
List of material object :
NIL List of Witnesses examined for defence:-
NIL List of documents marked for defence:-
NIL 1st Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.10 C.C.No.31370/2018
3-1-2022 State by Sr.APP Accused C/B For Judgment (Judgment pronounced in the Open Court) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 354(D), 509, 506 of IPC R/w Sec.66(E), 67(A), 71 of Information Technology Act.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by accused shall continue for a period of two months from the date of this order and thereafter same shall stand canceled automatically.
Seized Samsung mobile phone of accused under P.F. No.120/2018 shall be returned to him after expiry of appeal period.
ACMM, Bengaluru.