Bangalore District Court
To Her E-Mail Id On 13-11-2009 And vs Has Uploaded Obscene Videos From The on 2 March, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 2nd day of March 2020.
Present: Shri V.Jagadeesh, B.Sc., LL.M.
I Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/s.355 Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.3999/2011
Date of Ofence : 14-11-2009
Name of complainant : State by Cyber Crime
Police Station, COD, Bengaluru.
Name of accused : 1. B.Ramesh
s/o Bhakthavatsalam
@ Suresh, r/o No.305,
7th cross, 7th main,
Bhuvaneshwarinagar,
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru.
Ofences complained of: U/s.292, 3844, 3845 and 507 of
IPC & 67(A) of I.T. Act, 2000.
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is acquitted
Date of Order : 2-3-2020.
2 C.C.No.3999/2011
JUDGMENT
The Detective Inspector, Cyber Crime Police Station, COD, Bengaluru has fled the charge sheet against the accused for the ofences punishable under Sections 292, 3844, 3845 and 507 of IPC and 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, the accused with an intention to extort money criminally intimidated by creating defamatory and derogatory e-mail messages about the daughter of the complainant and sent those messages to the daughter of the complainant to her e-mail ID on 13-11-2009 and demanded money from her under a threat that he would sell those e-mail to porn sites, mms brokers and DVDs, when she did not heed to the demands, the accused has uploaded obscene videos from the intrenet by using video editing software and created a 3 C.C.No.3999/2011 title called "Manjula Wipro Employee Chennai Hot Girl" and sent the same on 31-12-2009 and published the obscene information in the electronic form and further went to Chennai and sent courier to the complainant, containing photographs which were the screen shots of the created video and CD containing obscene videos. Under such circumstances, the complainant has fled a complaint against the accused before the jurisdictional police. Accordingly, Cyber Crime Police have registered the case against the accused for the ofences punishable under Sections 292, 3845 and 507 of IPC and 67 of Information Technology Act in Crime No.844/2010. The Investigating Officer, after completion of investigation, has fled the charge sheet against the accused for the alleged ofences.
4 C.C.No.3999/2011
3. After appearance of the accused, necessary documents, as relied on by the prosecution, are furnished to the accused, as provided under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Charge for the ofences under Sections 292, 3844, 3845 and 507 of IPC and 67(A) of Information Technology Act, 2000 has been framed and same is read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Therefore, the case was posted for prosecution evidence.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, during the course of trial, C.Ws.9, 1, 3, 2, 5, 4, 7, 6, 84, 10, 12, 13, 15, 11, 19, 20, 21, 16, 17, 22 and 23 are examined as P.Ws.1 to 21 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P55 and identifed M.Os.1 to 4.
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 5 C.C.No.3999/2011 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has not adduced any oral evidence on his behalf except marking two documents as Exs.D1 and D2. Therefore, there is no oral evidence on behalf of the accused.
6. Heard the arguments of learned Senior A.P.P. and counsel appearing for accused.
7. Judgments relied on by the parties.
(a) Citation relayed on by the prosecution-NIL
(b) Judgment relied on the learned counsel for accused:
1. (2014) 10 SCC 473 (Anwar P. Vs. P.K.Bsheer and others).
84. The points that would arise for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused has committed the ofences 6 C.C.No.3999/2011 punishable under Sections 292, 3844, 3845 and 507 of IPC and 74 of Information Technology Act?
2. What order ?
9. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: As per fnal order, for the following:
REASONS
10. Point No.1:- The contention of the prosecution is that the accused with an intention to extort money criminally intimidated by creating defamatory and derogatory e-mail messages about the daughter of the complainant and sent those messages to the daughter of the complainant to her e-mail ID on 13-11-2009 and demanded money from her under a threat that he would sell those e-mail to porn sites, mms brokers and DVDs, when she did not heed to the demands, the 7 C.C.No.3999/2011 accused has uploaded obscene videos from the intrenet by using video editing software and created a title called "Manjula Wipro Employee Chennai Hot Girl" and sent the same on 31-12-2009 and published the obscene information in the electronic form and further went to Chennai and sent courier to the complainant, containing photographs, which were the screen shots of the created video and CD containing absence videos and thereby the accused has committed the ofences punishable under Sections 292, 3844, 3845 and 507 of IPC and 74 of Information Technology Act.
11. In order to prove the guilt of the accused for the ofences punishable under Sections 292, 3844, 3845 and 507 of IPC and 74 of Information Technology Act., C.W.9 is examined as P.W.1. P.W.1 is a seizure mahazar witness, who has deposed in 8 C.C.No.3999/2011 chief-examination that the Cyber Crime Police have summoned him to their office on 15-3-2010 and got his signature on mahazar, which is marked as Ex.P1. In chief-examination itself P.W.1 has deposed to the following efect:
The police did not seize
anything through Ex.P1 in my
presence. Along with me my
brother Kumar has also attested
Ex.P1. The police have not
recorded my statement. I know
this much.
The evidence of P.W.1 as above is not sufficient to prove the seizure mahazar. When the police have not seized anything in the presence of P.W.1, the material object produced before the court creates a doubt.
Since P.W.1 has not supported the case of the prosecution, he was treated as hostile witness and cross-examined by the learned Senior APP with the 9 C.C.No.3999/2011 permission of the court. But in the course of cross-examination, all the suggestions have been denied by P.W.1 emphatically. Moreover, nothing worth has been elicited to prove the seizure mahazar. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is not at all sufficient to prove the seizure mahazar,
12. The complainant/C.W.1 is examined as P.W.2. In order to establish and to prove the guilt of the accused, the evidence of P.W.2 is very important. In the course of chief-examination, P.W.2 has deposed at length by reiterating the allegations made in the complaint and also the contentions taken in the course of complaint as well as statements. P.W.2 has deposed with regard to alleged ofences against the accused and got marked complaint, photo sheets, courier invoice, letter and print out of threatening e-mails as Exs.P3 to P84 and identifed the alleged DVD as M.O.1. Therefore, I need 10 C.C.No.3999/2011 not recapitulate facts which have been reiterated in the course of chief-examination.
13. In order to disprove the case of the prosecution and to test the veracity of P.W.2, the learned counsel for accused has cross-examined P.W.2 at length. In the course of cross-examination, P.W.2 has categorically admitted that the accused is the classmate of his daughter and her daughter had so many friends both boys and girls. It is further deposed by P.W.2 with regard to education qualifcation and also job secured by his daughter in HP company. It is also admitted by P.W.2 that the accused and his daughter and their friends have established partnership frm called "Web Echlon", a computer programme frm at Banashankari III Stage, Bengaluru. This consistent and unequivocal admission of P.W.2 further establishes and proves that the accused and daughter of the complainant were all 11 C.C.No.3999/2011 close friends and also partners of private frm. Hence, it is clear that the daughter of the complainant and accused had close relationship.
14. In further cross-examination P.W.2 has categorically deposed that he has received courier service on 29-1-2010 consisting of coloured 16 photographs with DVD. It is further deposed by him that he has watched the contents of the DVD in their house along with his daughter on the same day evening. In order to establish and prove the guilt of the accused that he has sent those DVDs and photographs, the evidence of P.W.2 as above will not be sufficient. The evidence of P.W.2 is absolutely vague, because except deposing that he has received said courier cover, he has not whispered anything about sending of those materials by the accused. 12 C.C.No.3999/2011
15. In oder to disprove another fact that the photographs and the contents of the DVD do not disclose the photo of the daughter of the complainant, the learned counsel for accused has cross-examined P.W.2 in detail. In this regard P.W.2 has deposed in para No.2, page No.7 to the following efect:
After perusal of the photographs and watching the DVD I could not identify the persons in the photographs and the DVD (the sheets containing photographs are already marked as Ex.P4). It is true to suggest that after watching the photographs and the contents of the DVD, myself, my wife and daughter Dakshayini got confrmed that the lady in the photographs and the DVD s not my daughter.
13 C.C.No.3999/2011The unequivocal and categorical admission of P.W.2 as above clearly establishes and proves beyond reasonable doubt that the photographs and DVD received by him were not at all pertains to the daughter of P.W.2. When that being the case, the allegations made against the accused that he has sent vulgar messages and obscene photos in the form of DVD, is totally unsustainable and devoid of valid basis.
16. Similarly in further cross-examination, P.W.2 has deposed in para No.3, page No.7 and 84 to the following efect:
It is true to suggest that there is no nay resemblance between the lady shown in the photographs and the DVD compared to my daughter Manjula. It is true to suggest that any third person who has seen my daughter Manjula, if happen to see the photographs and the DVD, he will 14 C.C.No.3999/2011 say that the lady in them is not my daughter Manjula.
The categorical admission of P.W.2 as above further clarifes and proves that the alleged photographs and contents of DVD are not at all pertains to his daughter Manjula. Therefore, the allegations made against the accused for the alleged ofences are not at all proved.
17. Similarly P.W.2 has categorically deposed that he did not take any action between 1-2-2010 to 6-2-2010 but fled complaint on 17-2-2010. There is a delay of more than one month, which is not properly explained by P.W.2. Therefore, the categorical admission of P.W.2 as above and non-explaining the delay in fling the complaint, are all creates a doubt and I have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the complainant 15 C.C.No.3999/2011 might have fled false and frivolous complaint just to implicate the accused by making false allegations.
184. It is also important point to be noted at this stage itself that with regard to sending of photographs and DVD, P.W.2 has inquired with her daughter. In this regard P.W.2 has deposed in para No.1, page No.9 to the following efect:
I did not consult anybody except my elder daughter as to how the complaint has to be prepared. When I inquired my daughter Manjula as to who might have sent the photographs and the DVD, she expressed her ignorance saying that she d not know who he might be.
The evidence of P.W.2 as above further disproves the allegations and creates a doubt with regard to sending obscene messages to the daughter of P.W.2. 16 C.C.No.3999/2011
19. It is also important point to be noted at this stage itself that in further cross-examination in para No.2, page No.10 and 11, P.W.2 has deposed to the following efect:
Now I see complaint
dt.17-2-2020. It is a complaint
fled by me before the PI,
Gnanabharathi Police Station, the saids document is marked as Ex.D1. It is true to suggest that Ex.D1 bears my signature. The signature of the witness is marked as Ex.D1(a). It is true to suggest that along with Ex.D1, I have produced few documents. It is true that in Ex.D1 it is mentioned that my daughter has deleted some of the e-mails from the Wipro e-mail ID box, which have come from [email protected]. 17 C.C.No.3999/2011
The categorical admission of P.W.2 as above further establishes that earlier P.W.2 has fled one more complaint, which is at Ex.D1 and some of the e-mails have been deleted. Therefore, all these admission of P.W.2 creates a doubt with regard to implication of accused by making false story, which cannot be ruled out. It is also admitted by P.W.2 that he has fled third complaint before the Commissioner of Police on 15-3-2010.
20. In further cross-examination P.W.2 has deposed in page No.12, para No.1 to the following efect:
It is true to suggest that after I ensured that the photographs are not belonging to my daughter I lost the fear in my mind. Immediately after I received the cover, I gone through the photographs then I came to know that these 18 C.C.No.3999/2011 photographs are not the photographs of my daughter.
The unequivocal admission of P.W.2 as above further disproves the case of the prosecution, because the alleged photographs are not at all belongs to the daughter of P.W.1. Therefore, unequivocal and categorical admission of P.W.2 in the course of cross-examination as above is not at all sufficient to establish and prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged ofences.
21. C.W.3 is examined as P.W.3. P.W.3 is none other than another daughter of P.W.2 and elder sister of P.W.1. In chief-examination P.W.3 has also deposed in similar manner as deposed by her father P.W.2, with regard to allegations made against the accused for the alleged ofences. Therefore, I need not repeat the same at this stage.
19 C.C.No.3999/2011
22. In order to disprove the case of the prosecution and to test the veracity of P.W.3, the learned counsel for accused has cross-examined P.W.3 in detail. In the course of cross-examination, P.W.3 has deposed in page No.5 and 6 to the following efect:
PÉÆjAiÀÄgï ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆà ¤¦-4 (JgÀqÀÄ ²ÃmïUÀ¼ÀÄ) C£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ PÀÆ®APÀĵÀªÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¹ £ÉÆÃrzÁUÀ £À£Àß vÀAV ªÀÄAdļÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃzÀ°èzÀÝ ªÀåQÛUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ ºÉÆðPÉ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ CzÉà ¢£À «rAiÉÆêÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÉ£ÀÄ. CzÀgÀ°èzÀÝ ºÀÄqÀÄVUÀÆ £À£Àß vÀAVUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÉÆðPÉ EgÀ°®è. F «µÀAiÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ RavÀªÁ¬ÄvÀÄ. £À£Àß vÀAzÉ PÀÆqÀ £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «rAiÉÆêÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÀÉ. £À£Àß vÀAzÉUÀÆ PÀÆqÀ £À£Àß vÀAVAiÀÄ ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆà C®è CAvÀ RavÀªÁ¬ÄvÀÄ. £À£Àß vÀAV §AzÀ £ÀAvÀªÀÇ PÀÆqÀ F ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «rAiÉÆêÀ£ÀÄß 20 C.C.No.3999/2011 £ÉÆÃrgÀÄvÁÛ¼É. £À£Àß vÀAVUÀÆ PÀÆqÀ ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃzÀ°èzÀÝ ºÀÄqÀÄVUÀÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ½UÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÉÆðPÉ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ RavÀªÁ¬ÄvÀÄ. ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃzÀ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «rAiÉÆÃzÀ°èzÀÝ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ£À §UÉÎ £À£Àß vÀAVUÉ PÉýzÁUÀ £À£Àß vÀAVAiÀÄÄ CªÀ£À£ÀÄß ªÉÆzÀ® ¨ÁjUÉ £ÉÆÃqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ¼À PÀZÉÃjAiÀÄ°è CªÀ£ÀAvÀºÀªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄÁ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛ¼É.
The unequivocal admission of P.W.3 as above clearly shows and proves that the alleged photo is not at all belongs to her sister Manjula. The boy in the said photo and video was not working in their office. As already discussed above, the daughter of complainant were close friends and partners of frm since long time. Moreover, there is no material on record to establish the existence of revenge on behalf of the accused and the daughter of the complainant. 21 C.C.No.3999/2011
23. In further cross-examination P.W.3 has deposed in page No.6 to the following efect:
ZÉ£ÉßÊ£À°è EgÀĪÀ «¥ÉÇæà D¦üù£À ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜgÀÄ ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆêÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr ¸ÀzÀj ¥sÉÆmÉÆà £À£Àß vÀAVAiÀÄzÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è, AiÀiÁPÉ aAvÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛÃgÁ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. CªÀgÀÄ ¥sÉÆmÉÆêÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃzÀ°ègÀĪÀ ºÀÄqÀÄVUÀÆ ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß vÀAVUÀÆ ºÉÆðPÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
¤¦-4 gÀ ªÉÆzÀ® ¥ÀÅlzÀ°è EgÀĪÀ 6
¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃUÀ¼À°è £À£Àß vÀAVAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ
EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
¤¦-4 gÀ 2£Éà ¥ÀÅlzÀ°ègÀĪÀ 11
¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃUÀ¼À°è £À£Àß vÀAVAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ
EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
¤¦-4 gÀ 2£Éà ¥ÀÅlzÀ°è «¥ÉÇæà ªÀÄAdļÀ JAzÀÄ §gÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ £À£Àß vÀAVAiÀÄ LqÉAn¦üPÉõÀ£ïUÁV ¨ÉÃgÉãÀÆ ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. 22 C.C.No.3999/2011
«¥ÉÇæà D¦üù£ÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆà ºÁUÀÆ «rAiÉÆÃzÀ°èzÀÝ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ£À ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉãÀÆ ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
£Á£ÀÄ «¥ÉÇæà ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÁÝUÀ C°è CªÀgÀÄ ¥sÉÆmÉÆêÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «rAiÉÆêÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß vÀAVUÀÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ D «rAiÉÆà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃUÀ½UÀÄÁ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ ¸ÀA§AzÀs EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ RavÀªÁ¬ÄvÀÄ.
The unequivocal and categorical admission of P.W.3 as above clearly establishes and proves beyond reasonable doubt that whatever the photos produced before the court are not at all belongs to the daughter of P.W.2. When that being the case, the allegations made against the accused that the accused has sent vulgar messages and obscene photos of complainant 's daughter is not at all proved.23 C.C.No.3999/2011
24. In further cross-examination at page No.7, P.W.3 has deposed to the following efect:
£Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀªÁV UÀÄÁUÀ¯ïUÉ ºÉÆÃV F «rAiÉÆêÀ£ÀÄß N¥À£ï ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ UÀÆUÀ¯ï£À°è «¥ÉÇæà ªÀÄAdļÀ CAvÀ ¸ÀZïð ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ ¸ÀZïð j¸À¯ïÖ DV ®PÁëAvÀgÀ °APïUÀ¼ÀÄ §AzÀªÀÅ.
The evidence of P.W.3 as above is not at all sufficient to establish and prove that the accused himself has sent those specifc vulgar e-mails to the daughter of P.W.2. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.3 is not at all sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged ofences.
25. The victim C.W.2 is examined as P.W.4. P.W.4 has deposed in chief-examination at length and reiterated the allegations and contentions taken in the course of complaint against the accused for the alleged ofences. 24 C.C.No.3999/2011 Hence, I need not repeat the same again at this stage. To test the veracity of P.W.4, the learned counsel for accused has cross-examined P.W.4 in detail. It is deposed by P.W.4 that she came to know that her father has received courier with DVD and photo on 31-1-2010 and went to Chennai on the next day from where the alleged photos and DVDs alleged to have been sent. In further chief-examination P.W.4 has deposed with regard to receipt of e-mails on number of occasions, but not given details of those e-mails and also person from whom they had been sent.
26. In further cross-examination in page No.7, P.W.4 has deposed to the following efect:
¢B 31-12-2009 gÀAzÀÄ §A¢gÀĪÀ E-ªÉÄïï PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀÄÝ DgÉÆæ gÀªÉÄñï C®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ UÉÆwÛzÀÝgÀÆ £Á£ÀÄ F «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 25 C.C.No.3999/2011 ¥ÉǰøÀgÀ°è w½¹®è JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁgÀÄ JAzÀÄ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
The ignorance pleaded by P.W.4 as above is not at all sufficient to corroborate the allegations and not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged ofences.
27. In further cross-examination, P.W.4 has deposed at page No. 84 to the following efect:
«rAiÉÆà ¹r ºÁUÀÆ ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄAdļÀ JAzÀÄ §gÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ©lÖgÉ £À£ÀUÀÆ ºÁUÀÆ D «rAiÉÆà ¹r ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥sÉÆÃmÉÄÁÃUÀ½UÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ ºÉÆAzÁtôPÉ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. The unequivocal and categorical admission of P.W.4 as above clearly establishes that whatever the 26 C.C.No.3999/2011 alleged CD and photos received by P.W.2 are not at all related to P.W.4. When that being the case, the allegations made against the accused that he has sent obscene photos and vulgar messages of P.W.4, is not at sustainable. Therefore, the inconsistent and uncorroborative evidence of P.W.4 is also not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged ofences.
284. C.W.5 is examined as P.W.5. P.W.5 is a Manager of Blue Dart Courier, who has deposed with regard to sending courier cover from Chennai to Bengaluru. In this regard he has deposed to the following efect:
F PÉÆjAiÀÄgï ¢B 28-1-2010 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ 8-30 gÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è §ÄPï DVgÀĪÀ PÉÆjAiÀÄgï DVzÀÄÝ D ¢£À §ÄPï DVgÀĪÀ PÉÆjAiÀÄgï£À°è EzÉà ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà PÉÆjAiÀÄgï DVvÀÄÛ. F PÉÆjAiÀÄgï£À°è gÀ«, «¥ÉÇæ, 27 C.C.No.3999/2011 CuÁÚ¸À¯ÉÊ, VAr, ZÉ£ÉßÊ C£ÀÄߪÀªÀgÀÄ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÁÝV D PÉÆjAiÀÄgï£À°è ¸ÉAqÀgï PÁ®ªÀiï£À°è EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
The evidence of P.W.5 as above shows that one cover was sent through courier from Chennai to Bengaluru by one Ravi, but not Ramesh, who is the accused in the present case. Therefore, this piece of evidence of P.W.5 disproves the allegations made against the accused that he has sent courier cover to the complainant from Chennai.
29. C.W.4 is examined as P.W.6. P.W.6 was the employee of Wipro Technologies, Chennai, who has deposed that he was a colleague of accused and C.W.2 in the year 2010-2011. In chief-examination, P.W.6 has deposed in page No.1 to the following efect: 28 C.C.No.3999/2011
CªÀ½UÉ MAzÀÄ PÉÆjAiÀÄgï §A¢zÀÄÝ CzÀÄ «¥ÉÇÃæ mÉPïß®føï ZÉ£ÉßʤAzÀ §A¢zÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀÄÀUÀ¼ÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ vÉÆÃj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CªÀ½UÉ §AzÀ PÉÆjAiÀÄgï£À°è MAzÀÄ ¹r, ¸ÀtÚ ¸ÀtÚ avÀæ EgÀĪÀ ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹zÀ¼ÀÄ. The evidence of P.W.6 as above discloses that C.W.2 has shown one CD and photos received through courier. As already discussed above in detail, the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 proves that the alleged CD and photos are not at all pertains to the victim Manjula, who is the daughter of the complainant. It is further deposed by P.W.6 in further chief-examination that the said e-mail was not at all sent by their company, that is not relevant point to be noted at this stage, because the contents of the sealed cover is important. When it is proved that those contents are not depicts the photo of Manjula, any amount of oral evidence of P.W.6 is not 29 C.C.No.3999/2011 sufficient to corroborate and to prove the guilt of the accused.
30. In cross-examination at page No.3, P.W.6 has deposed to the following efect:
¤¦-4 gÀ ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃzÀ°ègÀĪÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÀÄwð¸À®Ä DVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¤¦-4 ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃzÀ°ègÀĪÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄAdļÁ ºËzÁ C®èªÁ JAzÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÆ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¥Àæ²ß¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. «¥ÉÇÃæ PÀA¥À¤¬ÄAzÀ ¥Àæw JA¥ÁèAiÀiïUÉ MAzÀÄ E-ªÉÄïï Lr PÉÆqÀ¯ÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £Á£ÀÄ «rAiÉÆà C£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É CzÀgÀ°èzÀÝ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÀÄwð¸À®Ä £À£ÀUÉ DVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. The clear evidence of P.W.6 as above further disproves the allegations made against the accused that the accused has sent obscene messages and photos of Manjula to P.W.2 to Bengaluru address. 30 C.C.No.3999/2011
31. C.W.7 is examined as P.W.7. P.W.7 has deposed with regard to uploading of e-mail messages alleged to be sent by the accused to Manjula to the following efect:
ನಮಗ ಶರತ ಅವರರ ಈ ಪ ಪಕರಣದ
ವಚರವನರ
ನ ತಳಸದನನದರ ರಮಮಶ ಅವರರ
ಮನಜರಳರವರ ಹಸರನಲ ಅವರ ಇಮಮಲ
ದ ಮತರತ ಇನಟರ ನಟ
ಐಡಗಳಗ ಮಮಲ ಕಳರಹಸದರ
ನನದ ಯವದದಮ ಒನದರ ವಡಯ ಅನರ
ನ ಡನ
ಲದಮಡ ಮಡ ಅದನರ
ನ ಎಡಟ ಮಡ ಮನಜರಳ
ಎನರ
ನ ವವರ ಹಸರಗ ಅಷಲದಮಡಮಡರರತತರ ಎನದರ
ಹಮಳದರರ.
The evidence of P.W.7 is not corroborative and consistent, because the evidence of P.W.7 as above is hear say evidence. The evidence of P.W.7 is not pertains to the disputed C.D.
32. In further cross-examination, P.W.7 has deposed in page No.2 to the following efect:
31 C.C.No.3999/2011
ಮರನದ ಡನ ಲದಮಡ ಮಡದನತಹ
ವಡಯ ಚತ ತ ಅಶಶಮಲ ದ
ಚತ ತವಗದರ ಅದರ
ನ ವ ಹಸರನಲ ಇತರತ.
ಮನಜರಳ ಎನರ
The evidence of P.W.7 as above quite contrary to the evidence adduced by P.Ws.2 to 4, because when P.Ws.2 to 4 have deposed that the alleged photos and videos are not related to Manjula, how P.W.7 has deposed that they are related to her. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.7 is nothing but improvement made after the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, just to over come the anomaly occurred in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4.
33. The learned counsel for accused has cross-examined P.W.7 in brief. To disprove the seizure of disputed laptop, in cross-examination P.W.7 has deposed in para No.2, page No.4 to the following efect:
¯Áå¥ÀmÁ¥ÀUÉ PÉA¥ÀÅ §tÚzÀ ªÁåPÀì ¹Ã®Ä EvÀÄÛ. D ¹Ã®£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÁUÀ ¯Áå¥ÀmÁ¥À ªÉÄÃ¯É 32 C.C.No.3999/2011 ºÁQzÀgÀÄ CAvÀ ±ÀgÀvï CªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ ¢®è. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¯Áå¥ÀmÁ¥À£ÀÄß CzÉà PÀªÀjUÉ ºÁQ ºÉƸÀ ¹Ã®£ÀÄß ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÉÄÃtzÀ vÀgÀºÀ EzÀÝ PÉA¥ÀÅ §tÚzÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÄlÄÖ ©lÄÖ ¯Á¥ÀmÁ¥ÀUÉ ¸ÀÄwÛzÀ §mÉÖ ªÉÄÃ¯É CAn¹zÀgÀÄ. ¯Áå¥ÀmÁ¥À ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÁQzÀ §mÉÖ ªÉÄÃ¯É £Á£À ¸À» ºÁQzÀ£ÉÆà E®èªÀÇ CAvÀ £É£À¦®è.
ªÀÄÄzÉݪÀiÁ®Ä-3gÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É EgÀĪÀ PÀªÀgÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É J£ÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄ §gÉzÀgÀÄ CAvÀ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. The evidence of P.W.4 as above is not at all sufficient to prove the seizure of M.O.3. When the evidence of P.W.7 is not sufficient to prove the seizure, the chance of manipulation cannot be ruled out.
34. C.W.6 is examined as P.W.84. P.W.84 is another independent witness, who has also deposed in similar manner as deposed by P.W.7 with regard to dispute. 33 C.C.No.3999/2011 Similarly P.W.84 has further deposed in page No.2 to the following efect:
CzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ mÉPïßPÀ¯ï JPïì¥Àlð ªÀÄ°èPÁdÄð£ï CªÀgÀÄ UÀÆUÀ¯ï£À°è «¥ÉÇæà ªÀÄAdļÁ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀZïð ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ CzÀgÀ°ègÀĪÀ JgÀqÀÄ °APïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß M¥À£ï ªÀiÁr CzÀgÀ°èzÀÝ «rAiÉÆÃUÀ¼À£ÀÄß qË£ï¯ÉÆÃqï ªÀiÁr ¸ÉÆä ¹rUÉ PÁ¦ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ.
The evidence of P.W.84 as above is absolutely vague, because he has not whispered anything about whether those e-mails were sent by the accused or not.
35. The learned counsel for accused has cross-examined P.W.84 in detail. In the course of cross-examination, P.W.84 has deposed to the following efect:
AiÀiÁºÀÆ F ªÉÄïï Lr N¥À£À ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ CzÀgÀ°è µÀÆïïØgÀì CAvÀ MAzÀÄ ¨ÁPÀì 34 C.C.No.3999/2011 EzÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ°è E£À¨sÁPÀì, qÁæµïÖì ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÉAmï JA§ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¥ÀævÀÉåPÀ ¥ÉÇîØgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ EªÉ. CzÉà F ªÉÄïï LrAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀævÀåPÀªÁV ªÉÄÊ ¥ÉÇîØgÀ JAzÀÄ E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ D¥À±À£ï N¥À£À ªÀiÁr £ÀªÀÄUÉ ºÉÃUÉ ¨ÉÃPÀÆ ¥ÉÇïïØgÀ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÀÄzÀÄ. The evidence of P.W.84 as above shows that whatever the contents found in inbox can be changed according to the customer.
36. Similarly it is further deposed by P.W.84 to the following efect:
¤¦-14©gÀ°ègÀĪÀ F ªÉÄïïUÀ¼ÀÄ E£À¨ÁPÀì¤AzÀ vÉUÉ¢gÀĪÀ ¦æAmËl EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ DzÀgÉ ¸ÉAmïLlªÀÄì¤AzÀ vÉUÉ¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
¤¦-14¹ gÀ°è EzÀÝAvÀºÀ F ªÉÄïï£À ªÉÆzÀ®£É ¥ÀÅlzÀ°è ºÁAiÀiï ªÀÄAdÄ CAvÀ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¤d. D F ªÉÄïï 35 C.C.No.3999/2011 ¥Áæ¸ÁB4 ªÀÄAdļÁ CªÀgÀ F ªÉÄïï Lr¬ÄAzÀ vÉUÉzÀAvÀºÀ ¦æAmËl DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¤¦-14E C£ÀÄß ªÀÄAdļÁ CªÀgÀ F ªÉÄïï Lr¬ÄAzÀ vÉUÉzÀAvÀºÀ ¦æAmËlUÀ¼ÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¤d. AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà F ªÉÄïï LrUÀ½AzÀ ¸ÉAmï LlªÀiï¤AzÀ zÁR¯É FUÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ E®è ºÁUÀÆ D ¢ªÀ¸À ¦æAmï vÉUÉ¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
The evidence of P.W.84 as above further establishes that the mail found as per Ex.P14(b) and (c) are printouts taken from in box, but not sent items. Therefore, this piece of evidence is also not sufficient to prove that the accused himself has sent those e-mails to P.W.2.
37. In further cross-examination, P.W.84 has deposed in para No.2, page No.5 to the following efect: 36 C.C.No.3999/2011
£Á£ÀÄ C°è EgÀĪÁUÀ D PÁgÀtPÉÌ D®ªÉÄÊn jlð£Àì 83 Jmï AiÀiÁºÀÆ qÁmï PÁªÀiï F ªÉÄÃ¯É Lr N¥À£À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DUÀ°®è ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÉAmï LlªÀiï N¥À£À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DUÀ°®è ºÁUÀÆ ¦æAmËl vÉUÉAiÀÄ®Ä DUÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¤d. D PÁgÀtPÉÌ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁj ¤¦-14gÀ°è F ªÉÄïï rDQÖªÉl CAvÀ §gÉzÀgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
The evidence of P.W.84 as above further disproves the allegations made against the accused that whatever the printouts taken from the concerned web sites are not at all sufficient to prove the allegations made against the accused.
384. It is further deposed by P.W.84 in page No.6 to the following efect:
37 C.C.No.3999/2011
¹¹¦J¸ï £À°è «ÃrAiÉÆ C£ÀÄß N¥À£À ªÀiÁr ¸Àé®à ºÉÆvÀÄÛ vÉÆÃj¹zÀgÀÄ CzÀÄ UÀÆUÀ¯ï¤AzÀ vÉUÉzÀ «ÃrAiÉÆ JAzÀgÉ ¤d. «ÃrAiÉÆ¢AzÀ ಕಲವನದರ ¹Ìç£ï ±Ámïì£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀgÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ¤d.
The categorical admission of P.W.84 as above proves that whatever the download made to CD are all from Google website, but not from the account of the daughter of the complainant.
39. C.W.84 is examined as P.W.9. P.W.9 is another seizure mahazar, who has not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to dispute. Therefore, he was treated as hostile witness and cross-examined by the learned Senior APP with the permission of the court. But in the course of cross-examination, nothing worth has been elicited to prove the mahazar. 38 C.C.No.3999/2011
40. C.W.10 is examined as P.W.10. P.W.10 is the owner of house which was let out to accused and his friend Hemanthkumar, Jenifer on monthly rent of Rs.4,000/-. The evidence of P.W.10 is not sufficient to prove the allegations except to establish that the accused was residing in a rented house.
41. C.W.12 is examined as P.W.11. P.W.11 is the independent witness, who has deposed to the following efect:
¸ÀzÀj ¢£ÀzÀAzÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ PÉ®ªÀÅ C²èî avÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀA¥ÀÇålgï£À°è vÉÆÃj¹zÀgÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj avÀæUÀ¼ÀÄ M§â «¥ÉÇÃæ GzÉÆÃåVAiÀiÁzÀ ªÀÄAdļÀ JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ AiÀiÁgÉÆà C²èî avÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¥ï¯ÉÄÁÃqï ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. The evidence of P.W.11 is absolutely vague and he has not whispered anything about sending those 39 C.C.No.3999/2011 obscene photos and messages by the accused. In cross-examination, P.W.11 has deposed that the Investigating Officer has shown the print outs taken by him and obtained his signature.
42. C.W.13 is examined as P.W.12. P.W.12 is a Nodal Officer of Bharati Airtel company. It is deposed by him that as requested by the Investigating Officer he has furnished CIF details pertains to mobile No.99029623006 and also furnished the print outs of call details, which is at Exs.P21 and P22. In cross-examination, P.W.12 has deposed to the following efect:
¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ £À¤ßAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®èè ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj zÁS®ÁwUÀ¼À ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß 40 C.C.No.3999/2011 ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ¸ÀzÀj ¹rDgï£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ £ÀªÀÄä ¹¸ÀÖªÀiï¤AzÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÃÛªÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. The evidence of P.W.12 as above further establishes that he has not produced any certifcate for having supplied the call details of mobile. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.12 cannot be considered, because the provisions contemplated under Section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act are not complied with. Mere supply of call details and print outs, is not sufficient to prove that the accused himself has sent those mails to the complainant.
43. C.W.15 is examined as P.W.13. P.W.13 is one of the partners of Web Channel in which the accused is also one of the partner. The evidence of P.W.13 is not sufficient to prove the guilt except to establish that the 41 C.C.No.3999/2011 accused is one of the partners of the said Web channel, which is not in dispute.
44. C.W.11 is examined as P.W.14. P.W.14 has deposed in chief-examination to the following efect:
¸ÀzÀj ¢£ÀzÀAzÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ PÉ®ªÀÅ C²èî avÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀA¥ÀÇålgï£À°è vÉÆÃj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj avÀæUÀ¼ÀÄ M§â «¥ÉÇÃæ GzÉÆÃåVAiÀiÁzÀ ªÀÄAdļÀ JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ AiÀiÁgÉÆà C²èî avÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¥ï ¯ÉÄÁÃqï ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. The evidence of P.W.14 as above is vague and he has not whispered anything about sending obscene messages and photos by the accused, but he has deposed that somebody has sent those vulgar messages.42 C.C.No.3999/2011
45. In cross-examination in page No.2 and 3, P.W.14 has deposed to the following efect:
¥Áæ¸Á-2gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀĺÀdgï
ªÉüÉAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß ¸À» ¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ
ºÉý £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¥Áæ¸Á-2gÀªÀgÀÄ F ªÉÆzÀ¯Éà £À£ÀUÉ vÀ¤SÁ ªÉüÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÁQëAiÀiÁV §gÀ®Ä w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
The evidence of P.W.14 further establishes that the daughter of the complainant Manjula herself brought P.W.14 to place of incident, but not by the Investigating officer.
46. In further cross-examination in page No.4, P.W.14 has deposed to the following efect:
43 C.C.No.3999/2011
¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV ¤¦-19 gÀAvÉ ¦æAmï OmïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß AiÀÄÁgÁzÀgÀÆ mÉÊ¥ï ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ ¹ÃÌç£ï ªÉÄÃ¯É §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. The evidence of P.W.14 is not corroborative to prove the print outs as per Ex.P19 that the accused has sent those messages.
47. C.W.19 is examined as P.W.15. P.W.15 is a employee of yahoo.com Private Limited, who has deposed with regard to furnishing of e-mail details to the Investigating officer and got marked those documents as Exs.P25 to P30. The learned counsel for accused has cross-examined P.W.15 in detail. In the course of cross-examination in page No.2 and 3, P.W.15 has deposed to the following efect:
¸ÁQëUÉ FUÀ yahoo. EzÀÄ JgÀqÀÄ E-ªÉÄïï Lr ¥ÉÇæêÉÊqïìUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀÝPÉÌ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ 44 C.C.No.3999/2011 yahoo.co.in ºÁUÀÆ yahoo.in JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÁQëUÉ FUÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ yahoo.com £À°è jf¸ÀÖgï DVgÀĪÀ E-ªÉÄïïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DQì¸ï ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸Ë®¨ÀsåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄwÛÃgÁ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀÝPÉÌ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¸Ë®¨Àså EgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
The categorical admission of P.W.15 as above clearly establishes that they have no facility to have access to e-mails send through yahoo.com. When that being the case, whatever the information given by him as per Ex.P25 to P30 have no evidential value.
484. In further cross-examination in page No.3, P.W.15 has deposed to the following efect:
¤¦-27 gÀAvÉ MAzÀÄ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 23.12.2009 gÀAzÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ®£ÉAiÀÄ ¨ÁjUÉ E-ªÉÄïï 45 C.C.No.3999/2011 LrAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¯ÁV£ï ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.¸ÁQëUÉ FUÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¢£ÁPÀ 01.11.2009 jAzÀ 02.03.2010gÀªÀgÉUÉ ªÉÆzÀ® ¨ÁjUÉ E-ªÉÄïï Lr ¯ÁV£ï ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ ¢£ÁAPÀ 23.12.2009 EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÝPÉÌ ¸ÁQë »A¢£À 90 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À ªÀgÉUÉ AiÀiÁªÀ AiÀiÁªÀ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛªÉAiÉÆà CµÀÖ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ PÉÆqÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj 90 ¢£ÀQÌAvÀ ªÀÄÄAavÀªÁzÀ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ºÀwÛgÀ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
¸ÁQëUÉ FUÀ MAzÀÄ ¸À® AiÀiÁªÀÅzÁzÀgÀÆ LrAiÀÄ£ÀÄß r DåQÖªÉÃmï ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ ªÀÄvÉÛ CzÀ£ÀÄß DQì¸ï ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DUÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ ¸ÁQë ºËzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉý ªÀÄvÉÛ CzÀgÀ°ègÀĪÀ ªÉÄãï E-ªÉÄïï PÀAmÉAmïìUÀ¼ÀÄ r°mï DUÀÄvÀÛªÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
The categorical admission P.W.15 as above clearly establishes that whatever the e-mails sent through website will be retained only for the period of 90 days 46 C.C.No.3999/2011 and thereafter those details will be deleted. Therefore, having regard to the date of e-mails and printouts taken in respect of alleged e-mails clearly shows that by the time printout were taken 90 days period was elapsed. Hence, whatever the details furnished are not at all relevant and not pertains to the accused.
49. In further cross-examination, P.W.15 has deposed in page No.4 to the following efect:
ªÀÄÄzÀÉݪÀiÁ®Ä 4£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr CzÀ£ÉÃß £Á£ÀÄ ¹¹¦J¸ï£ÀªÀjUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄvÉÃÛ£ÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄÄzÉÝ ªÀiÁ°£À PÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀÆqÀ £ÉÆÃrzÀgÉ CzÀgÀ°ègÀĪÀ r¸ÀÌ£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ G¥ÀAiÀÉÆÃÃV¹gÀÄvÉÃÛªÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ ¢®èªÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ªÀÄÄzÉÝ ªÀiÁ®Ä 4 gÀ°ègÀĪÀ PÀ£ïmÉAmïìUÀ¼ÀÄ K£ÁVgÀÄvÀÛªÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÉ §gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.47 C.C.No.3999/2011
The admission of P.W.15 as above further establishes and proves that the contents of CD, which is at M.O.4 are not proved. Hence, the evidence of P.W.15 also not sufficient to prove the allegations made against the accused.
50. C.W.20 is examined as P.W.16. P.W.16 is a Forensic Lab scientist, who has deposed in chief- examination that they have received sealed covers, which are marked as Exs.P1 to P10 from Cyber Crime Police, Bengaluru for investigation. It is further deposed by P.W.6 that after scientifc investigation he has received one laptop, one hard disc and he has examined these materials along with one M.Krishna and submitted detailed report consisting of 41 pages, which is marked as Ex.P31. The evidence of P.W.16 as above shows that P.W.16 with the assistance of his colleague M.Krishna he has examined those materials. 48 C.C.No.3999/2011 Accordingly P.W.16 and M.Krishna have signed the report jointly. The perusal of records reveals that said M.Krishna who is another scientist submitted joint report is not examined in the present case. Therefore, examination of P.W.16 alone without examining another Scientist M.Krishna is not sufficient to prove the joint report submitted by two Scientists. It is further deposed by P.W.16 that he has submitted another additional report containing 9 pages along with his colleague Sai Prasad, which is marked as Ex.P41. Similarly the examination of P.W.16 alone without examining Sai Prasad is not sufficient to prove the joint report submitted by two Scientists.
51. In order to test the veracity of P.W.16 and in order to disprove the joint report submitted by P.W.16, the learned counsel for accused has cross-examined P.W.16 in detail. In the course of cross-examination, 49 C.C.No.3999/2011 P.W.16 has deposed in page No.84 to the following efect:
ನನನ ಸದರ ವರದಯಲ ಸದರ ಹರರ ಡಸಕ ನಲ ಡಟಗಳರ ಯವ ರಮತ ಬನದರರತತವನದರ ನಮದದರ ಮಡಲಶವನದರ ಸರ. ನನನ ಸದರ ವರದಯಲ ಸದರ ಫಫಲಲಳ ಸದಮರರ ಸನ ಬಗಲಯದ ಕದಡ ನಮದದರ ಮಡಲಶವನದರ ಸರ.
The categorical admission of P.W.16 as above clearly establishes that he has not mentioned how the disputed datas were created in the said hard disc. Similarly he has not whispered anything about the source of those disputed fles. Unless that is proved, the allegations made against the accused that he has uploaded the videos in the internet is not proved.
52. In further cross-examination it is deposed by P.W.16 that the Investigating officer has made 50 C.C.No.3999/2011 requisition on 184-6-2011 requesting him to give opinion with regard to name of the person, in whose name the operating system and user name were written. Except this, there is no requisition by the Investigating Officer to give any other opinion. Unless and until the fact of uploading and sending vulgar messages from the operating system is proved, the vague allegations made against the accused that he has done the said illegal act is not sustainable.
53. In further cross-examination, P.W.16 has deposed in page No.6 and 7 to the following efect:
ನನನ ವರದಯ ಪ ಪಕರ ಸದರ ಸಸಸಮ ದನನಕ 12.3.2010 ರನದರ ಕದನಯ ಬಡಗ ಶಟಡನಮಡಲಗರರತತದ ಎನದರ ನಮದದರ ಮಡರರತತಮನನದರ ಸರ.
ದ.12.3.2010 ರ ನನತರ ಸದರ ಸಸಸಮ ನರ ನ ಓಪನಮಡರರವದಲಶವನದರ ಸರ.51 C.C.No.3999/2011
The categorical admission of P.W.16 as above clearly establishes that the disputed system was shut down on 12-3-2010 and it was not opened thereafter. When that being the case, the allegations made against the accused that he has uploaded and sent vulgar messages and photos to the victim by using alleged computer is not sustainable and devoid of valid basis.
54. Similarly, in the course of further cross-examination, P.W.16 has deposed to the following efect:
ಯವದಮ ಒನದರ ಸಸಸಮ ನರ ನ ಶಟರನ ಮಡದರ ಯವದಮ ಫಫಲನರ ನ ಆಕರಸ, ಹಗದ ಮಡಫಫಡ ಮಡಲರ ಬರರವದಲಶವನದರ ಸರ. ನನನ ಪ ಪಕರ ಸದರ ಸಸಸಮ ನರ ನ ದ.12.3.2010 ರನದ ಅದನರ ನ ಓಪನ ಮಡರರವದಲಶ ಹಗದ ಉಪಯಗಸರರವದಲಶವನದರ ಸರ. ನಪ 34 ರ ಜದತ ಲಗತತಸರರವ ದಖಲತಗಳ ಪ ಪಕರ 52 C.C.No.3999/2011 ಸದರ ಸಸಸಮ ದ.15.3.2010 ರನದ ಆಕರಸ ಹಗದ ರಟರನ ಆಗರರತತದ ಎನದರ ಸರ. ನನನ ವರದ ಪ ಪಕರ ಸದರ ಡ ಡ ಡಪ ವ ವಬ ಆಕಲನ ಎನಬ ಹಸರನಲ ಇರರತತದ ಎನದರ ಸರ.
The unequivocal admission of P.W.16 as above further proves that the disputed computer system was not at all used subsequent to 12-3-2010. When that being the case, the allegations made against the accused with regard to commission of alleged ofences by using shut down system is not sustainable. Hence, the inconsistent and categorical admission of P.W.16 creates a doubt with regard to the allegations made against the accused for commission of alleged ofences by using electronic equipments.
55. C.W.12 is examined as P.W.17. P.W.17 is a Legal Manager of Google India. In chief-examination, P.W.17 has deposed to the following efect:
53 C.C.No.3999/2011
ಸಕಯರ ಗದಗಲ ಇನಕ ನನದ ನಮಡರರವ
ಇಮಮಲ ನ ವರದಯನರ
ನ ದ , ಸದರ
ನದಮಡದರ
ದ , ತವ
ವರದಯರ ಗದಗಲ ಇನಕ ನವರರ ನಮಡದರ
ನವರಹಸರತತರರವ ಗದಗಲಇನಡಯ ಹಗದ ಗದಗಲ
ದ , ಈ ಮಮಲ ಹಮಳರರವ
ಇನಕ ಬಮರ ಬಮರಯಗದರ
ವರದಗದ ಹಗದ ತಮಮ ಸನಸಸಗದ ಯವದಮ ಸನಬನಧ
ಇರರವದಲಶವನದರ ಹಮಳರತತರ. ಸದರ ವರದಯರ
ನಮರವಗ ಕಕಲಪಮನರಯದಲರರವ ಗದಗಲ ಇನಕ
ನನದ ಜನರಮಟ ಆಗರರತತದ. ಆದ ಕರಣ ಸದರ
ವರದಯ ಬಗಲ ನನಗ ಯವದಮ ಮಹತ ಇರರವದಲಶ.
The evidence of P.W.17 as above will not help the prosecution in any way to prove its case for the ofence made against the accused.
56. C.W.16 is examined as P.W.184. P.W.184 has deposed with regard to registration of a complaint fled by the complainant and seizer of CD, photos and other documents under the mahazar. Mere registration of a complaint and conducting seizure mahazar, will not be 54 C.C.No.3999/2011 sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused that he has committed the alleged ofences.
57. In the course of cross-examination, P.W.184 has deposed that after instructions given by the Technician, he has conducted the mahazar by opening laptop. P.W.184 is not a Technician. In cross-examination P.W.184 has deposed in page No.2 and 3 to the follow efect:
Q: At the time of investigation you have noticed that the flm was already in internet. What do you say?
Ans: The accused has disclosed that the said flm was already in internet. The categorical admission of P.W.84 as above clearly shows that disputed videos were already in the internet before seizing or taking copies of the videos in the CD help the prosecution to prove the guilt, because 55 C.C.No.3999/2011 this piece of evidence of P.W.184 is not sufficient to establish that the accused himself has uploaded abusive photos and messages.
584. C.W.17 is examined as P.W.19. In order to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged ofences, the evidence of P.W.19 is very important. P.W.19 is the Investigating officer, who has deposed with regard to investigation conducted by him during investigation. It is further deposed by P.W.19 that he has collected certain information from the concerned Yahoo Company with regard to details of IP address and physical address and details of all the disputed phone numbers. It is further deposed by P.W.19 that with the help of Technician, he has opened laptops to get details of e-mails alleged to be sent by the accused to the victim. It is further deposed by him that he has instructed the Technician to download the video found 56 C.C.No.3999/2011 in the website alleged to be sent by the accused. But in chief-examination itself P.W.19 has deposed in page No.3 to the following efect:
After login I found the status of e-mail ID deactivated.
The evidence of P.W.19 as above clearly shows that the status of the e-mail ID was deactivated. Similarly it is also pertinent to note that P.W.19 has not whispered anything, when exactly and at whose instance the status of e-mail ID was deactivated and he has further deposed that he has recorded the voluntary statement of the accused. Mere recording of voluntary statement of the accused will not help the prosecution, because it is not admissible in evidence.
59. It is further deposed by him that as per Ex.P47 the accused has sent secondary e-mail ID 57 C.C.No.3999/2011 [email protected] i.e., mail from which the victim has received the obscene videos and messages. This piece of evidence of P.W.19 will not be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, as the accused himself has sent those obscene videos and messages to the victims through the above said e-mail.
Similarly in further cross-examination he has secured certain opinion with regard to CIF of mobile No.9902963006, the CIF is marked as Ex.P20 and call detail register is marked as Ex.P21.
60. In further chief-examination itself P.W.19 has deposed that the said mobile number was used at Chennai. It is further deposed by him that as per Ex.P20 the accused is the owner of th said mobile number. Mere establishment of fact that the above said mobile number is belongs to the accused, it does 58 C.C.No.3999/2011 not mean that he has sent vulgar messages to the victim by using said mobile.
61. To disprove the case of the prosecution, the learned counsel for accused has cross-examined P.W.19 in detail. In the course of cross-examination P.W.19 has categorically admitted that on the basis of IP address and phone number he has made the accused person as an accused in the present case. It is also admitted by P.W.19 that the laptop which was seized from the office premises namely weblabs and pixo labs and web echelon, which are all belongs to the same company. The said company is a partnership frm in which Jenifer, Ramesh, Hemanthkumar and D'souza are working. Therefore, the categorical admission of P.W.19 as above further establishes that disputed laptop and CD were seized from the office of the company, but not from the possession of the 59 C.C.No.3999/2011 accused. It is also important point to be noted at this stage itself that as admitted by P.W.19 as above it is clear that all the partners of the company had access to the above said electronic computers. Therefore, it I very difficult to pin point to any particular person, with regard to use of those computer.
62. In further cross-examination it is admitted by P.W.19 that as per Ex.P49 the telephone is standing in the name of Webechelon company. To the question posed by the learned counsel for accused that Webechelon company did not have any other connection except for business purpose, P.W.19 has deposed that he has investigated with regard to IP address. Therefore, this vague evidence of P.W.19 is not sufficient to prove that the accused alone had access to Webechelon.com and used the same to commit the alleged ofences.
60 C.C.No.3999/2011
63. In further cross-examination it is admitted that the seized laptops were laying on the table in the premises of Webechelon company but other partners of the frm had access the said laptop. Hence, the allegations made against the accused that he has used the said laptops to commit the alleged ofences, is not sustainable and devoid of valid basis. In further cross-examination with regard to access of laptop there is question and answer in page No.10 to the following efect:
Q:- Whether we have investigated the fact, whether the particular premises of the company was used by the accused herein exclusively or by other partners and employees?
Ans:- Since, the said premises is belongs to the company who were working in the said company are using that premises.61 C.C.No.3999/2011
The categorical admission of P.W.19 as above is not supportive to prove the fact that the accused himself alone had exclusive use of the said computer and laptop to send obscene messages and abusive photographs.
64. In further cross-examination in page No.10, P.W.19 has deposed to the following efect:
As per my investigation and after thorough verifcation of the material seized, I came to know that the particular laptop i.e., M.O.3 was used for sending obscene messages, creating and publishing obscene materials and it is seized under Ex.P1.
The evidence of P.W.19 as above is not at all sufficient to prove that the accused has used the said laptop to sent obscene materials to the victim as 62 C.C.No.3999/2011 alleged in the complaint. In fact it is admitted that the expert has examined the entire laptop including the indicators and it is admitted by P.W.19 that the drive 'C' as per Ex.P31 is blank and drive 'D' named as Webechelon and drive 'F' as back up.
65. It is further deposed by P.W.19 in page No.11 to the following efect:
Q:- In the report submitted by the FSL the name of the accused is not disclosed, either in any fle or folder?
Ans:- The computer name itself
shown name of the accused as
Ramesh.
The inconsistent evidence of P.W.19 as above further creates a doubt . As already discussed above, absolutely there is no evidence on record to prove the 63 C.C.No.3999/2011 fact that the accused alone had access to use the computers and laptops to commit the alleged ofences.
66. It is further deposed by P.W.19 in page No.11 to the following efect:
It is true to suggest that, as per ExP31 to 35 subject videos and photographs of the present case are found in drive D. The unequivocal and categorical admission of P.W.19 as above clearly establishes that videos and photographs, which are at Ex.P31 to P35 are found in drive 'D' which is in the name of webechelon, but not in the name of accused. Therefore, the unequivocal admission of P.W.19 as above is not sufficient to prove the allegations made against the accused. 64 C.C.No.3999/2011
67. In further cross-examination P.W.19 has deposed in page No.12 to the following efect:
It is true to suggest that, in ExP32 there is no mention about the me of the accused in drive or folder of the lap top. Witness voluntaries that so for as present case is concerned there are lot of personal photographs and other materials in this laptop.
When there are lot of personal photographs and other materials in the laptop, the evidence of P.W.19 that the accused had sent abusive messages and photographs to the victim leads to doubt.
684. further cross-examination in page No.12, P.W.19 has deposed to the following efect:
I am not aware whether the contents shown in the ExP32 were uploaded on or before 16.10.2009. It is true to suggest that, the alleged video 65 C.C.No.3999/2011 were uploaded to the website on or before 16.10.2009.
The admission of P.W.19 as above further proves that he is not in a position to depose when exactly the abusive videos are uploaded to the victim. It is also very important point to be noted at this stage itself that any amount of oral evidence of P.W.19 with regard to investigation will not be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, because the complainant i.e., P.W.2 and his two daughters P.Ws.3 and 4 have categorically and unequivocally admitted that whatever the photos and videos uploaded and sent, are not at all belongs to P.W.4. Therefore, the allegations made against the accused that he has downloaded abusive photos from internet and edited, renamed and republished the same in the internet is totally unsustainable and devoid of valid basis. Therefore, whatever the allegations 66 C.C.No.3999/2011 made against the accused for commission of alleged ofences cannot be countenanced for any reasons.
69. C.W.22 is examined as P.W.20. P.W.20 is a Technical Assistant in CID office, who has deposed with regard to accompanying the Investigating officer to Webechelon and seized certain computers and CD by opening e-mail ID under mahazar. In the course of cross-examination, P.W.20 has deposed in page No.3 to the following efect:
ಮಹಜರ ನಲ ಇರರವ ವಷಯ ಗದತರತ ಆರದಮಪಯರ ಯವ ಕನಪಕಟರ ನರ ನ ಉಪಯಗಸರತತದದರರ ಎನದರ ತನಖಧಕರ ಆರದಮಪಯನರ ನ ಕಮಳದರರ ಎನಬರದರ ಬಗಲ ಮಹಜರ ಪನಚನಮಯಲ ಬರದಲಶವನದರ ಸರ.
The categorical admission of P.W.20 as above is not sufficient to establish that whatever the photos 67 C.C.No.3999/2011 alleged to be sent and downloaded by P.W.20 is not in the presence or assistance of the accused. As already discussed above in view of the submission made not only the accused, but other partners of the frm had access to the computer devices. Hence, there is no prima facie evidence to establish and prove that the accused himself has sent the abusive messages and videos to the victim.
70. C.W.23 is examined as P.W.21. P.W.21 is another Technical Expert, who has deposed that he has given mirror image data which was seized by the police and stored in a system and seized under the mahazar. When the evidence of P.Ws.19 and 20 is not sufficient to prove the commission of ofences, the seizure of objects will not be helpful to the case of the prosecution. At the cost of repetition it is pertinent to note that the evidence of P.W.19 is not sufficient to 68 C.C.No.3999/2011 prove the seizure of articles from the accused and there is no evidence to prove that the accused has used those articles to commit the alleged ofences.
71. It is also pertinent to note that C.W.22 is examined as P.W.20 was not mentioned in the charge sheet as charge sheet witnesses, but he was examined on behalf of prosecution, on the application fled by the prosecution subsequently. Similarly there is no evidence on record to prove that the seized laptop is exclusively belongs to the accused and he alone used it. It is also pertinent to note that as per Ex.P32, there are four drives in the system, but there is no evidence on record to prove that all four drives were used by the accused. It is also important point to be noted at this stage that there are some videos in the 'D' drive, but there is no evidence to prove the fact that the said video has link with the accused. Therefore, viewed 69 C.C.No.3999/2011 from any angle and in view of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, both oral and documentary, is not at all sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused for the ofences punishable under Sections 292, 3844, 3845 and 507 of IPC and 67(A) of Information Technology Act, 2000, beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, it is held that the accused is entitled for acquittal for the alleged ofences. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
72. Point No.2:- In view of my answer on the point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused is not found guilty for the ofences punishable under Sections 292, 3844, 3845 and 507 of IPC and 67(A) of Information Technology Act, 2000. Therefore, he is acquitted for the said ofences under Section 2484(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled. 70 C.C.No.3999/2011 M.O.3 is ordered to be confscated to the State after appeal period is over.
M.Os.1, 2 and 4 being worthless, are ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over. (Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, revised and then corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 2nd day of March 2020).
(V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
P.W.1, Dhanashekar,
P.W.2, Honnappa,
P.W.3, Smt.Dakshayini,
P.W.4, Smt.Manjula,
P.W.5, Ramkumar,
P.W.6, Deepthi Kapoor,
P.W.7, Deepak K.N.,
P.W.84, Prasad,
P.W.9, Kumar,
P.W.10, Srinivas,
P.W.11, Venkatesh,
P.W.12, Styalin,
P.W.13, Mohankumar Pandith,
P.W.14, Sheshadri Deekshith,
P.W.15, Rabin Farnandis,
P.W.16, Krishnashastry Pendiyar,
71 C.C.No.3999/2011
P.W.17, Smt.Geethanjali Duggal,
P.W.184, Chidanandaswamy,
P.W.19, Sharath,
P.W.20, Mallikarjuna,
P.W.21, Raghunandan;
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:-
Ex.P1, Mahazar,
Ex.P2, Statement of P.W.1,
Ex.P3, Complaint,
Ex.P4, Photos,
Ex.P5, Courier proforma invoice,
Ex.P6, Letter,
Ex.P7 &
Ex.P84, Threatening e-mails sent by
the accused,
Ex.P9, Mahazar,
Ex.P10, Another complaint,
Ex.P11, Document with complaint,
Ex.P12, Airway bills,
Ex.P13, Shipment details and cash receipt,
Ex.P14, Seizure mahazar,
Ex.P15, Seizure mahazar,
Ex.P16, Cover,
Ex.P17, Statement of P.W.9,
Ex.P184, Another seizure mahazar,
Ex.P19, 184 Screen shot printouts,
Ex.P20, Certifed copy of CAF,
Ex.P21, Call details print out,
Ex.P22, Request letter through e-mail to P.W.12
for providing IP address,
Ex.P23, IP address details furnished as per
Ex.P22,
Ex.P24, Certifed copy of registration number
of partnership deed,
72 C.C.No.3999/2011
Ex.P25, Printout of requisition,
Ex.P26, Registration details,
Ex.P27, Access details,
Ex.P284, Covering letter,
Ex.P29, Request letter by I.O,
Ex.P30, Courier cover,
Ex.P31, Statement,
Ex.P32, Annexure 42 pages,
Ex.P33, Requisition,
Ex.P34, Supplementary examination report,
Ex.P35, Annexure,
Ex.P36, Word document printout
Ex.P37, FSL report,
Ex.P384, FIR,
Ex.P39, Order dated 23-3-2010,
Ex.P40, Printouts of requisition and reply,
Ex.P41, Printout of requisition,
Ex.P42, Printout of e-mail ID
Ex.P43, Reply,
Ex.P44, Printout of e-mail ,
Ex.P45, Letter dated 25-3-2010 from CID Cyber,
Ex.P46, Letter,
Ex.P47, E-mail print out,
Ex.P484, E-mail print out,
Ex.P49, Printout of the reply given by Airtel,
Ex.P50, e-mail printout of reply,
Ex.P51, Incorporation details,
Ex.P52, Letter to CFSL, Hyderabad,
Ex.P53, Letter to CFSL, Hyderabad,
Ex.P54, Statement of CW.6,
Ex.P55, Statement of C.W.7;
List of material object:
M.O.1, DVD,
M.O.2, CD,
73 C.C.No.3999/2011
M.O.3, Laptop,
M.O.4, CD,
List of documents marked on behalf of the defence:-
NIL List of documents marked on behalf of the defence:-
Ex.D1, Complaint,
Ex.D2, Cover containing photographs and CD,
(V.Jagadeesh)
I Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.
74 C.C.No.3999/2011
2/3/2020
State by Sr.APP
Accused C/B
For Judgment
(Judgment pronounced in the Open Court) ORDER The accused is not found guilty for the ofences punishable under Sections 292, 3844, 3845 and 507 of IPC and 67(A) of Information Technology Act, 2000. Therefore, he is acquitted for the said ofences under Section 2484(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled. M.O.3 is ordered to be confscated to the State after appeal period is over.
M.Os.1, 2 and 4 being worthless, are ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(V.Jagadeesh), I ACMM, Bengaluru.75 C.C.No.3999/2011
76 C.C.No.3999/2011 77 C.C.No.3999/2011