Delhi District Court
State vs . Parnay Tiwari on 30 June, 2023
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
-09, SOUTH-EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided by: Sh. Rishabh Tanwar
State Vs. Parnay Tiwari
FIR No: 158/2017
U/S: 387/507 IPC
P.S.: G. K.-1
DLSE020341692017
A. CR No. : DLSE020341692017
B. Date of Institution : 20.11.2017
C. Date of commission of : 07.09.2017
offence
D. Name of the complainant : Sh. Ravish Kapoor
s/o Sh. Rakesh Kapoor
R/o B-93, Greater Kailash-1,
New Delhi.
Name of the accused, his : Parnay Tiwari
parentage and address s/o Sh. Virender Tiwari
r/o village Kothar, PO Tamara, Teh. Gurh,
Distt. Rewa (MP).
F. Offence complained of : 387/507 IPC
G. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
H. Judgment reserved on : 02.06.2023
I. Date of Judgement : 30.06.2023
J. Final Order : CONVICTION
FIR No. : 158/2017
State Vs.Parnay Tiwari Page No. 1 of 17
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS
1.Brief facts of the case are that on 07.09.2017, an information was received and recorded vide DD NO. 12 A, on receiving it, Investigation officer (hereinafter referred to as "the IO"), alongwith Ct. Jai Narayan went to the spot where the complainant Ravish Kumar (hereinafter referred to as complainant) gave a typed complaint regarding receiving of threatening calls from an unknown number. He also deposed that the caller demanded Rs. 5.00 crores from the complainant so as to save life of his family members. The complainant also deposed that the caller told him that he is a member of a terrorist group and he shall kill the family members of the complainant if the complainant will inform anyone about all this. During investigation one person named Parnay Tiwari (hereinafter referred to as accused) was arrested from Gurh, District Rewa, Madhya Pradesh. After the completion of the investigation, the present chargesheet u/s 387/507 Indian Penal Code, 1869 (hereinafter "the IPC") was registered against the accused. The accused was summoned to face trial.
2. A copy of the chargesheet was provided to the accused Parnay Tiwari. The charges under section 387/507 IPC were framed against the accused, to which he had pleaded "not guilty" and had claimed trial.
3. The prosecution, in order to discharge its burden, had examined 10 witnesses.
A. PW-1: Sh. Ravish Kapoor: He deposed that on 07.09.2019 at about 9:00-9:30 am, he received a ransom call for about Rs. 5.00 crore. He after receiving the said call gave a written complaint to the police. The said complaint is Ex PW- 1/A. He further deposed that he had received notice u/s 91 CrPC from police for handing over his mobile and screen shots which is Ex PW-1/B and Ex PW-1/C. FIR No. : 158/2017 State Vs.Parnay Tiwari Page No. 2 of 17 He also proved the certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex PW-1/D. He denied all suggestions put to him.
B. PW-2: ASI Sukhbir Singh: He deposed that he was posted as ASI/DO at PS G.K-1 and on that he had recorded the rukka vide DD Noo. 17 A and made endorsement on the same, which is Ex PW-2/A and registered the FIR which is Ex PW-2/B. He also proved his certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex PW-2/C. He was not cross examined.
C. PW-3: Ct. Jai Narayan: He deposed that on the day of incident he after receiving DD No. 12 A by the IO, he alongwith him went to the place of incident i.e. B-93, G.K. 1, New Delhi where he met the complainant who gave typed complaint to IO. He went to the PS and handed over the tehrir to the DO for registration of FIR.
He was cross examined by the Ld. LAC for the accused wherein he deposed that they had left the PS at about 12:00 pm. He also deposed that he spent near about 20-25 mins at PS. He denied all other suggestions put to him.
D. PW-4: HC Laxmi Narayan: He deposed that he was posted as HC at PS GK. On that day, he joined the investigation of this case and went to Saket court with the IO. He proved the interrogation of accused persons vide Ex PW-4/A and Ex PW-4/B and disclosure statement of the accused as Ex PW-4/C. He had correctly identified the accused in court.
He denied all suggestions put to him.
E. PW-5: ASI Niranjan Singh: He deposed that he was posted as ASI at ISC- Crime Branch, Chanakyapuri. On that day, he deposed that on 12.09.2017 IO SI Vijay Kumar handed over to him the case file. He also deposed that on that day, accused Parnay Tiwari gave the disclosure statement to SI Vijay Kumar about FIR No. : 158/2017 State Vs.Parnay Tiwari Page No. 3 of 17 FIR No. 158/17. He also deposed that on 13.09.2017, IO/SI Kishore Prasad went to him and handed over the documents of FIR No. 151/2017 PS Crime Branch to the IO of the present case.
In his cross examination he had deposed that he did not have any personal knowledge of the present case. He denied all other suggestions put to him.
F. PW-6: Sh. Ajit Singh, Alernate Nodal Office, Idea Cellular Ltd.: He deposed that he was working in the abovesaid company from 2005. He had proved the certified copy of the customer application form as Ex PW-6/A. He was not cross examined by the Ld. LAC for the accused.
G. PW-7: Sh. Shyam Sunder Asst. Ahlmad in the court of Ld. CMM. He had deposed that he had brought the original file of the FIR No. 151/2017 dated 04.09.2017, PS Crime Branch. The photocopy of the disclosure statement of Pranay Tiwari seizure memo of the mobile phone, SIM card, arrest memo of Parnay Tiwari and statement of Vipin Kumar are Ex PW-7/A, Ex PW-7/B, Ex PW-7/C and Ex PW-7/D. He was not cross examined by the Ld. LAC for the accused.
H. PW-8: SI Kishore Prasad: He deposed that on the day of incident, he was posted as SI at PS GK-1. On that day, he had received DD No. 12 A. After receiving the same he alongwith Ct. Jai Narayan went to the place of incident, where he met the complainant Ravish Kappor. Complainant handed over him a written complaint. He prepared tehrir on the same, which is Ex PW-8/A. Thereafter, the complainant handed over the copy of print outs of the threatening messages Further, on 12.09.2017, he had received information from the PS Chanakya Puri ISA Cell that accused Parnay Tiwari has been arrested. He collected the documents of the FIR No. 151/2017 PS Crime Branch and had moved an application for the production of accused before the court. During investigation he had received CDR and CAF of the mobile number of the the FIR No. : 158/2017 State Vs.Parnay Tiwari Page No. 4 of 17 complainant alongwith certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. Also, he had recorded the statement of the witnesses, and filed the chargesheet before the court.
In his cross examination he had deposed that when he reached the house of the complainant, he had met the complainant only. He also deposed that he had formally arrested the accused as he had been arrested by the police officials of PS Crime Branch. He had denied all other suggestions put to him. I. PW-9: Inspector Vijay Kumar: He deposed that on 11.09.2017, he was posted as SI at PS Crime Branch. He recovered one mobile phone and SIM card from the possession of the accused and same was seized by him. He had correctly identified the accused before the court.
In this cross examination he had deposed that he had arrested the accused from Rathehara, Rewa, M. P. He deposed that no passerby was joined in the investigation of the present case. He also deposed that he did not remember the name and rank of the police official. He denied all other suggestions put to him.
J. PW-10: Sh. Kailash Kumar: He deposed that on 25.01.2018, he was posted as Jr. Forensic. Asst. Chemical Examiner in Computer RFSL, Chanakyapuri. On that day, he received a query through the messenger regarding the mobile phone which had already been submitted in case reference no. RFSL(CHP)-2017/CFU- 11159. His examination report dated 11.04.2018 alongwith annexure A, B and certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex PW-10/A. He was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
4. After examination of all prosecution witnesses, statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded on 11.05.2022, wherein the accused had stated he is innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present matter.
5. The accused had not led any evidence in his defence.
FIR No. : 158/2017 State Vs.Parnay Tiwari Page No. 5 of 17
6. Final arguments were advanced and heard on behalf of Ms. Shilpi Chaudhary, Ld. APP for the State and Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
7. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Per contra, Ld. counsel for the Accused has argued in his written arguments that the allegation of the complainant that he received Whatsapp chat and messages from the accused has not been proved at all. He has further argued that the registered owner of the mobile phone from which the alleged threatening messages had been received by the complainant belonged to one person named Vipin and the said person has not been examined by the prosecution in the present matter to establish how his mobile number or phone was being used by the accused. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel that the said phone has been falsely planted upon the accused person. Ld. Counsel has argued that the accused was arrested on the basis of his disclosure statement recorded in another FIR number 151/2017 PS Chanakya Puri, Delhi and the said disclosure statement has no value in the eyes of law. Ld. Counsel for the accused has lastly argued that there was a delay in lodging the FIR which shows that there may have been manipulation in the FIR. Ld. Counsel for the accused has prayed that the accused be acquitted of the offenses alleged against him as the prosecution has failed to prove the case against him.
8. Before rowing the boat of this discussion towards appreciation of the facts, I would appreciate the laws applicable on the present facts first.
9. The accused has been indicted for the offence under section 387 and section 507 I.P.C.
10.Section 387 I.P.C. is an aggravated form of extortion and for the offence under Sec. 387 IPC, the prosecution had to prove the necessary ingredients of the FIR No. : 158/2017 State Vs.Parnay Tiwari Page No. 6 of 17 offence of extortion. To prove the offence of extortion, the prosecution must establish:
a. That the accused had put, or attempted to put, the complainant in fear of death or grievous injury.
b. That fear of death or grievous injury was aimed towards either the complainant or to some other person.
c. That the accused had done the above act, in order to commit extortion, i.e., that the accused thereby intended to induce the complainant, so put in fear, to deliver the valuable security or some property and lastly that the accused did such act dishonestly.
11.Section 507 I.P.C. is a specie of the offence under section 506 I.P.C. and is defined as:
"507. Criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication. -- Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication, or having taken precaution to conceal the name or abode of the person from whom the threat comes, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, in addition to the punishment provided for the offence by the last preceding section."
12.This is settled law that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused based upon circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established:
a. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstance concerned "must" or "should" and not "maybe" established.
b. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of accused, i.e to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis, except that the accused is "guilty". FIR No. : 158/2017 State Vs.Parnay Tiwari Page No. 7 of 17 c. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. d. They should exclude every possible hypothesis, except the one to be proved, and e. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused (Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Sharad Birdi Chand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622").
13. Further the Apex court in "Chander Mal & Anr. V/s State of Rajasthan AIR 1976 SC 917" held that when a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests:
a. Firstly, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established.
b. Secondly, those circumstances should be of a definite tendency pointing out towards the guilt of the accused.
c. Thirdly, the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else, i.e to say, the circumstances should be incapable of explanation of any reasonable hypothesis save that of the accused's guilt.
14.I have gone through the alleged messages sent from the mobile phone number 89640-26639, received by the complainant on his mobile phone number 93133- 33333, proved by the complainant as PW-1/C. Some of the text messages, as is revealed from the conversation, are hereby reproduced:
"Mr ravish if u want to save ur family plz arrange 5 cr cash asap. i will tell u the address. dnt west ur time to inform anyone. bcz one of my FIR No. : 158/2017 State Vs.Parnay Tiwari Page No. 8 of 17 person is working with u.. mr ravish i dnt have time...i dnt have time. actualy my is rizwan khan, member of a terror group, i need money asap. Otherwise it will take a single minut to finish everyone in ur family..My boss need ur...update on that asap ..." (sic) "...and still u are asking about me. mr ravish nither u are not safe nor ur family right now..." (sic) "...and mr ravish my one order can finish everything.." (sic) "Ms ravish if I didnt get money by tomorow morning, i am sure u will get start negative news from tomorow." (sic) "...mr ravish for ur info. I would u like to tell u that in a single minut i can finish u and ur family...mr ravish I am having lots sharp shooters who is working in my one sound..and i can blast anywhere anytime hope u will mind it.." (sic) "Mr ravish will u arrange the money or not bcz it will a minut to finish u. i dnt have time now...otherwise u will start getting news one by one now" (sic) "Didnt u see my msg? mr ravish u will regrate when ur family will nt be with u. i am asking ur finale desesion tell me now" (sic) "mr ravish to shoot u or ur family member is a single minut game for me..why u are forcing me to do that? dont u love ur family? u will loose ur family for just a small price of money only..." (sic)
15.By reading the above-mentioned excerpt of the conversation, it becomes stark clear that the person who had sent these texts wanted to instill fear of death of the family members of the complainant to him, and had demanded a ransom of Rs. 5 crores, in order to avoid that threat. Any reasonable person reading these texts would certainly have labored under a fear for the lives and safety of his family members.
16. It is pertinent to note that the offence under section 387 I.P.C., legislature in his FIR No. : 158/2017 State Vs.Parnay Tiwari Page No. 9 of 17 wisdom has used both expressions namely "puts" or "attempts to put" in the fear of death of grievous injury. The use of the disjunctive 'or' clearly shows that the prosecution has a choice. It can either prove that the accused was had put the complainant under such a fear or it can prove that he had made an attempt to do so. In proving the latter, it is not necessary to show that the intention of the accused has led to a fruition i.e., the complainant had been put under a fear of death or grievous hurt. It would suffice if the accused had acted in such a manner that his actions have transgressed from the sphere of 'preparation' and has entered the field of 'an attempt'. One way to gauge the same, would be to determine that, regardless of the result, can the accused turn back and undo his actions? If the answer is yes, the stage of preparation is not yet over. If the answer is no, the stage of preparation is over and stage of attempt has begun. In the present case, the threatening texts had been sent and received by the complainant and the same could not have been rescinded or taken back by the accused. Consequently, an attempt, as defined under section 387 I.P.C., has been completed.
17.Therefore, at this stage the prosecution has been able to prove that the sender of these texts had attempted to put the complainant in the fear of death threat to his family members.
18.Now it has to be seen whether the prosecution has been able to link the identity of the sender of the above-mentioned texts with the accuse.
19.The accused was arrested by ISA cell police persons, P.S. Chanakyapuri in another F.I.R. no. 385/387 I.P.C., P.S. Crime Branch, from Rewa, Madhya Pradesh vide arrest memo [Ex. PW-7/C (OSR)]. The accused had made a disclosure statement confessing his involvement in the present F.IR. It is beyond any doubt that such a statement is inadmissible under section 25 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as "I.E.A." for the sake of brevity) and cannot FIR No. : 158/2017 State Vs.Parnay Tiwari Page No. 10 of 17 be used for any purpose except as envisaged under section 27 I.E.A. It is pertinent to note that a mobile phone of the make Samsung Duos (white color) dual sim having IMEI numbers 354466082919528 and 354467082919526 having a sim card of idea company bearing no. 8964026639 was recovered from him and seized vide seizure memo [Ex. PW-7/B (OSR)]. It is the same mobile phone number which was used to send the alleged threatening messages to the complainant.
20.The seized mobile phone and the sim card were sent for expert examination to RFSL, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi and report (Ex. PW-10/A) was received. The mobile phone was marked as Ex. MP1, and the sim card was marked as Ex. SC1 during examination. After the examination was concluded, the messages (total 65 in number) related to the mobile number 9313333333 were retrieved from Ex. MP1. i.e., the mobile phone recovered from the accused, even though the messages were deleted from the mobile phone.
21.Now the mobile phone number from which the threatening messages were sent to the complainant has been recovered from the possession of the accused, as is proved during trial, vide Ex. PW-7/B (OSR). The number 9313333333 has been proved by the prosecution to be issued in the name of the complainant vide Ex. A2 (CAF of the said number and admitted by the accused under section 294 Cr.P.C.) The messages that were sent to the complainant were retrieved from the mobile phone so recovered from the accused, which stands proved by Ex. PW- 10/A. The same messages correspond with the messages as mentioned in Ex. PW-1/C which is duly supported with a certificate under section 65B I.E.A (Ex. PW-1/D). Further the CDR of the mobile phone number 8964026639, recovered from the accused, also reveals exchanges of messages with the mobile phone number 9313333333. The same was admitted the accused under section 294 Cr.P.C. as Ex. A3.
FIR No. : 158/2017 State Vs.Parnay Tiwari Page No. 11 of 17
22. The argument of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the said mobile phone number was found to be registered in the name of one Vipin and the said Vipin was never examined is not tenable, as once a mobile phone with the sim used to commit the offence has been recovered from the accused and proved by the prosecution, the burden was then upon the accused under section 105 I.E.A. to explain how he came into the possession of the same. The said onus cannot be shifted upon the prosecution, and it is for the accused to discharge the same.
23. No evidence was led by the accused in this regard. When the accused was asked about the same in his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused had merely replied "I do not know". He further stated that "police officials in plain clothes took me from the house of my Aunt (mausi) on 10.09.2017 at Rewa, Madhya Pradesh on point of pistol. My Mausi or my Mama made a call at 100 number against my illegal arrest". No such complaint or call log has been brought on record by the accused. Saying 'I do not know' is not sufficient to discharge the burden which lies upon the accused under section 105 Cr.P.C. The accused did not prefer himself to examine under Section 315 Cr.P.C, to dispel the charges of the prosecution. It also cannot be lost sight of that it is quite easy nowadays to secure a sim using forged/fake identity proofs. The data, which has become the new gold, is sold - quite brazenly - in digital areas such as dark web etc., and more often than not, the same falls into the hands of notorious elements of society, who then use the same in committing offences.
24. The Constitution Bench of this Court in "M.G. Agarwal and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0117/1962: [1963]2SCR405" stated the law with utmost lucidity in the manner noted below:
"It is a well-established rule in criminal jurisprudence that circumstantial evidence can be reasonably made the basis of an accused person's conviction if it is of such a character that it is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and is consistent only with his guilt. If FIR No. : 158/2017 State Vs.Parnay Tiwari Page No. 12 of 17 the circumstances proved in the case are consistent either with the innocence of the accused or with his guilt, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. There is no doubt or dispute about this position. But in applying this principle, it is necessary to distinguish between facts which may be called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the other. In regard to the proof of basic or primary facts, the Court has to judge the evidence in the ordinary way, and in the appreciation of evidence in respect of the proof of these basic or primary facts there is no scope for the application of the doctrine of benefit of doubt. The court considers the evidence and decides whether that evidence proves a particular fact or not. When it is held that a certain fact is proved, the question arises whether that fact leads to the inference of guilt of the accused person or not, and in dealing with this aspect of the problem the doctrine of benefit of doubt would apply and an inference of guilt can be drawn only if the proved fact is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and is consistent only with his guilt." (Emphasis is of the undersigned)
25. Coming back to the facts of the present case, the seizure memo (Ex. PW-7/B) stands proved by the testimony of PW-9, who had prepared the same. He had admitted in his cross-examination that no public persons were joined in the proceedings. He also admitted that the accused was arrested at 05:30 AM. He also admitted that at that time, no passerby was there. It is true that non joining of public persons and lack of sincere efforts by the police persons making the personal search and the arrest have a tendency of causing a great dent in the story of the prosecution, however, in the zeal of holding such an irregularity to brush aside the prosecution story, it cannot be lost sight of that at 05:30 AM in the morning, it is possible that no public persons would be available. Efforts could only be made when such persons are available but are reluctant to join the search proceedings. It is not the case here. I find that in the present circumstances, non- FIR No. : 158/2017 State Vs.Parnay Tiwari Page No. 13 of 17 joining of independent public persons has not affected the prosecution story for the reasons stated above.
26.Ld. Counsel for the accused had argued that since there was a delay in lodging the F.I.R., as the IO had spent two hours at the house of the comlplainant, the same amounted to manipulation in the F.I.R. I do not agree with the argument as cross-examination of the IO (PW-8) would reveal that when they reached the house of the complainant, the latter had narrated the entire incident to him and also, asked him as to what he should have done regarding it. It is at that point that PW-8 suggested the complainant to give the statement in writing as a complaint. It shows that the complainant wanted some assistance, and it is possible that this is why the IO spent considerable time at the house of the complainant.
27. Now coming to the offence under section 507 I.P.C. The said offence is a species of the offence defined under section 503 I.P.C and punishable under section 506 I.P.C. The prosecution must prove the ingredients of section 503 I.P.C. before the discussion could move onto section 507 I.P.C., as if clear from the words employed in section 507 I.P.C. namely "Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication...".
28.Section 506 IPC deals with the punishment for criminal intimidation. Section 503 defines the said offence. It has following essentials:
(i) (Actus reus) Threatening a person with any injury,
(a) to his person, reputation or property or
(b) to the person or the reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested.
(ii) (Mens rea) The threat must be with intention,
(a) to cause alarm to that person, or
(b) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do FIR No. : 158/2017 State Vs.Parnay Tiwari Page No. 14 of 17 as means of avoiding execution of such threat, or
(c) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as means of avoiding of such threat.
29.Therefore, the intention must be to cause alarm to the victim and whether he has alarmed or not is really of no consequence but material has to be brought on record to show that intention was to cause alarm to that person.
30. Here reference could be made in the case of 'Romesh Chandra Arora Vs. The State AIR 1960 SC 154', wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held :
"..We are unable to accept this contention as correct. We agree with the High Court that the charge framed against the appellant was not as clear as it might have been. It stated however, that the offence of criminal intimidation was committed by threatening X and his daughter with injury to their reputation by having the indecent photographs published; the intent mentioned was to cause alarm to X and his daughter. The real intention, as disclosed by the evidence accepted by the trial Magistrate and the High Court, was to force X to pay "hush money." Section 506 is the penal section which states the punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation; the offence itself is defined in S. 503. Leaving out what is not necessary for our purpose, the section last mentioned is in two parts; the first part refers to the act of threatening another with injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested; the second part refers to the intent with which the threatening is done and it is of two categories: one is intent to cause alarm to the person threatened and the second is to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat. On the findings arrived at against the Appellant, FIR No. : 158/2017 State Vs.Parnay Tiwari Page No. 15 of 17 the first part of the section is clearly fulfilled; and as to the intent, it comes more properly under the second category, that is, to cause X to do any act ( in other words, to pay hush money) which he was not legally bound to do, as a means of avoiding the execution of the threat..."
31. Further, the term 'Injury' is defined by section 44 I.P.C as "44. "Injury". --The word "injury" denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property."
32. In para 14 of this judgment, I have already laid down the threatening texts sent by the accused to the complainant. There is a clear threat of death that was extended to the family members of the complainant and payment of Rs. 5 crore was asked to be paid in cash by the accused to the complainant, if he wanted to save his family. It is stark clear that the said messages were sent to the complainant to cause alarm to him, so that he could arrange for the demanded money, as a means to avoid the execution of threat. The use of the words "member of a terror group", "i am having lots sharp shooters who is working in my one sound.. and i can blast anywhere anytime." (sic), coupled with death threats to the family of the complainant, clearly shows that the accused intended to cause alarm to the complainant.
33.Further, the accused introduced himself as one Rizwan Khan, member of a terror group and also, portrayed as if he was working under the direction of one boss. Further he used a sim card which was not registered in his own name clearly shows that the accused committed the offence of criminal intimidation by the means of an anonymous communication.
34.Another factor which has dawned on the mind of this court is that no alteration/fabrication of the seized case property was reported by the RFSL in its report (Ex. PW-10/A). Hence, the sanctity of the mobile phone and the sim card recovered from the accused was maintained.
FIR No. : 158/2017 State Vs.Parnay Tiwari Page No. 16 of 17 CONCLUSION
35.To sum up the discussion, after carefully sifting through the evidence in light of the arguments advanced by the parties, I find that in the present case, the prosecution has been able to prove a chain of circumstances beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. It is now without any doubt, I hold that all the connected circumstances only point towards the hypothesis that it is the accused who has committed the offence under section 387/507 I.P.C. and no circumstances have been proved which would allow this court to give any benefit of doubt to the accused.
36.For the reasons stated above, I hereby convict the accused Pranay Tiwari of the offence under section 387/507 I.P.C.
37.Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the accused.
38.This judgment contains 17 pages (front and back), and each page has been signed by the undersigned in the open court today.
Announced in the open court on this 30th day of June, 2023 (Rishabh Tanwar) MM-09/SED, Saket Courts 30.06.2023 FIR No. : 158/2017 State Vs.Parnay Tiwari Page No. 17 of 17