Delhi District Court
State vs Ravinder on 3 July, 2025
1
IN THE COURT OF DIG VINAY SINGH, SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT),
CBI-09 (MPs/MLAs CASES), ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT,
NEW DELHI.
SC NO. 8/2023
CNR NO. DLCT11-000616-2023
FIR NO. 506/2016
U/S: 328/376 of IPC,
13(1) of the PC Act 1988,
and 66E & 67A of IT Act
PS: SULTANPURI
STATE
Versus
Ravinder
S/o Sh. Jagdish
R/o H. No. 143, behind Sant Nishchal School,
Navdeep Colony, Hisar
Date of institution: 16.08.2023
Date of arguments: 29.05.2025
Date of judgment: 03.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The above-named accused faced trial for offences under Sections 67A & 66E of the Information Technology Act 2000 (IT Act).
1.1. The FIR was registered initially against co-accused Sandeep Kumar (already acquitted), the then MLA of the then ruling 'Aam Aadmi Party', u/s 7/13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (PC Act), r/w 328/376 of IPC, as also r/w Section 66E/67A of the IT Act. The FIR was registered on 3.09.2016 on the complaint of prosecutrix 'X' (identity Judgment dated 03.07.2025, in State Vs. Ravinder; FIR No. 506/2016; PS Sultan Puri; CNR NO. DLCT11-000616-2023; Page 1 of 20 2 protected), who claimed the date of the incident was around eleven months before the date of her complaint given on 03.09.2016. In the FIR the allegations against the said MLA were that he called the female 'X' at his residence and after administering some stupefying substance committed rape upon her and also committed unnatural oral sexual act. He also video recorded the incident on a digital device, which was subsequently uploaded to social media. The MLA faced trial separately, and by that time, the present accused was not identified. The co-accused, Sandeep Kumar, was later acquitted in the matter by a judgment dated 11.09.2024, as the prosecutrix did not support her complaint and the prosecution's claim.
1.2. As for the current accused, he received the obscene material related to the incident from some social media or other sources, and later allegedly uploaded that video on YouTube. During the investigation, information from YouTube was obtained, revealing that the video clips and photographs were uploaded from a YouTube channel named "Funny Hindi Video clips and Photo." From 'Google Inc.', upon notice under section 91 of the Cr.P.C., information was gathered, and it was revealed that the video was uploaded from an ID Number "FpIIhCtprso," with an external user ID number "c5IgInvzkLOmuhhuIa6tuw." The aforementioned YouTube channel username was found to be registered under the email address "[email protected]." It was uploaded and published on 02.09.2016 at about 9:24 AM from an IP address '59.90.91.32', which was registered at the address of one Rajiv Taneja, 69-70 Ganesh Market, Hisar, Haryana. Upon tracing the mobile number registered to the email ID, i.e. mobile number 9996028001, it was found that the mobile was registered Judgment dated 03.07.2025, in State Vs. Ravinder; FIR No. 506/2016; PS Sultan Puri; CNR NO. DLCT11-000616-2023; Page 2 of 20 3 under the name and address of the 'Micro Volt System' shop no. 69-70, Ganesh Market, Hisar, Haryana, a company run by Rajiv Taneja and his brother, Sunil Taneja.
1.3. During the investigation, when Rajiv Taneja and his brother, Sunil Taneja, were contacted, both stated that the mobile number mentioned above belonged to the accused, Ravinder, who was employed as an accountant at the time. The Taneja brothers had provided bulk mobile numbers under the Corporate User Group (CUG) from 9996028000 to 9996028011 to their employees. These group numbers were assigned to various employees for official work, and the mobile number in question was given to the accused.
1.4. By the time the Investigating Officer reached the Taneja brothers, the accused had already left the company, having worked there from 2006 until 30.06.2017. The Taneja brothers expressed ignorance regarding whether the accused registered any personal email ID with that number, uploaded any video, or operated any YouTube channel. By the time the Investigating Officer reached them, the brothers had started separate businesses, and the mobile number in question was found with Rajiv Taneja's company, which he was running independently.
1.5. Admittedly, by the time the accused was identified and contacted, he had already returned the mobile SIM number to Rajiv Taneja and had also sold the mobile device through which the objectionable video was allegedly uploaded. The mobile phone instrument could not be traced, as the accused did not remember to whom it was sold. The investigating agency could not even obtain the call detail records (CDR) of the mobile phone Judgment dated 03.07.2025, in State Vs. Ravinder; FIR No. 506/2016; PS Sultan Puri; CNR NO. DLCT11-000616-2023; Page 3 of 20 4 in question, and the accused was subsequently charge-sheeted without arrest.
2. On finding prima facie sufficient material, the accused was charged u/s 67A & Section 66E of the IT Act for having uploaded and published the obscene video clip on 02.09.2016 at about 9:24 AM, which included sexual activities between two persons including a female (prosecutrix) and for containing the image of private parts of the prosecutrix, without her consent, violating her Right of Privacy. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses: PW1 Sunil Taneja, PW2 Rajiv Taneja, PW3 HC Seva Ram, PW4 Victim Ms. 'X', PW5 Inspector Rajnish Kumar, PW6 Statement of ACP Sh. Darade Sharad Bhaskar, PW7 ACP Sh. Mihir Sakaria and, PW8 ACP Rajbir Malik.
3.1. PW1 and PW2 are brothers who were running the company where the accused worked at the relevant time, where he was allegedly provided with the CUG mobile number mentioned above. Their relevant testimonies will be discussed hereinafter to avoid repetition.
3.2. PW4 is the prosecutrix who turned hostile during the trial against the present accused; she did not identify either herself or co-accused Sandeep in the video played in Court during her testimony. She entirely denied the incident of rape or that she was visible in the video in question.
3.3. PW3 Head Constable Sewa Ram accompanied the IO to the office of the Taneja brothers on 25.06.2022 and witnessed the seizure of certain documents handed over by the Taneja brothers to the IO.
Judgment dated 03.07.2025, in State Vs. Ravinder; FIR No. 506/2016; PS Sultan Puri; CNR NO. DLCT11-000616-2023; Page 4 of 20 53.4. PW5 to PW8 are all Investigating Officers of the present supplementary chargesheet or the earlier chargesheet, and they testified about the investigations conducted by them, respectively. The relevant part of their testimonies will also be discussed hereinafter to avoid repetition.
4. When all the incriminating evidence was presented to the accused during his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to section 351 of BNSS), he denied all the evidence against him, asserting he had no connection with the mobile phone in question, the email ID, or even the YouTube channel. He denied that the mobile number was provided to him at any point by the Taneja brothers. Additionally, he claimed that the Taneja brothers and other witnesses testified against him falsely and that the documents purportedly collected by the Investigating Agency from the Taneja brothers or Google Inc. are forgeries made up to deceive. He even challenged the mode of proof of electronic evidence, claiming the lack of a proper Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The accused opted not to present any defence in his favour.
5. Final arguments were heard, as advanced by the Ld. Prosecutor for the State, Mr. Manish Rawat, and Ld. Counsel for the Accused, Mr. Balwant Singh.
5.1. The accused contended that the prosecution has failed to prove any connection between him and the mobile number, email ID, YouTube channel, or the videos, and that the electronic evidence presented has not been substantiated. It is also argued that the prosecutrix turned hostile and did not support claims of her visibility in the video; therefore, there can be no question regarding her consent or lack thereof for the video's upload.
Judgment dated 03.07.2025, in State Vs. Ravinder; FIR No. 506/2016; PS Sultan Puri; CNR NO. DLCT11-000616-2023; Page 5 of 20 6Furthermore, the argument was made that neither the mobile phone nor the CDR was recovered, and there is no documentary proof to associate the mobile number or the email ID with the accused.
5.2. On the other hand, the Ld. Prosecutor for the State argued that through the testimonies of PW1 & PW2, it is evident beyond doubt that the accused was issued the mobile SIM number, he was using it at the relevant time, and from that mobile number, the email ID was created, and the video was uploaded on YouTube. It is also argued that regardless of whether the female in the video could be identified or whether her consent for the upload existed, the offence under section 67A of the IT Act would still hold against the accused.
6. It is crucial to emphasise that, in a criminal trial, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, which must establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction; the prosecution cannot rely only on the weaknesses in the defence of the accused. It may also be mentioned here that it is well settled that one of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence is that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is also well settled that suspicion, however strong, can never replace proof. There is a significant difference between the fact that the accused 'may have committed the offence' and the assertion that he 'must have committed the offence', which must be proved by the prosecution through reliable and cogent evidence. The presumption of innocence is recognised as a human right that cannot be disregarded. (Refer: Narender Singh & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (2004) 10 SCC 699; Ranjitsingh Brahamjeet Singh Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 294; Ganesan Vs. Rama S. Raghuraman & Ors. (2011) 2 SCC 83 and State of Judgment dated 03.07.2025, in State Vs. Ravinder; FIR No. 506/2016; PS Sultan Puri; CNR NO. DLCT11-000616-2023; Page 6 of 20 7 U.P. Vs. Naresh & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 384.). Considering this legal position, let us examine the material provided by the prosecution.
7. This leads us to the pertinent question of whether the prosecution has been able to prove any connection between the accused and the YouTube channel on which the video was uploaded or whether the email ID belonged to the accused through which the YouTube channel was created or if the mobile phone was with the accused at the relevant time.
7.1. As noted above, neither the mobile phone nor any CDR could be recovered, leaving the only evidence concerning the accused's possession and use of the mobile phone being the oral testimony of PW1 & PW2. This brings us to the oral testimonies of the Taneja brothers.
7.2. PW1 Sunil Taneja testified that, in response to a notice under section 91 Cr.P.C. received on 25.06.2022, Ext.PW1/A, he provided a reply, Ext.PW1/B, and also furnished documents concerning his company and the mobile phone, which were seized under the seizure memo Ext.PW1/C. The documents are collectively presented as Ext. PW1/D. He also testified that at the relevant time, the accused worked for their company as an accountant, and that the mobile number in question was issued to the accused under the CUG series, with the accused working from approximately 2010 to 2015, though he could not remember exactly.
During cross-examination, he admitted that no record was maintained regarding the issuance of SIM cards to employees, including the accused, and claimed he recalled orally that the mobile number had been given to the accused. He acknowledged that the mobile number was still active at the time of his testimony and was being used by Judgment dated 03.07.2025, in State Vs. Ravinder; FIR No. 506/2016; PS Sultan Puri; CNR NO. DLCT11-000616-2023; Page 7 of 20 8 another employee. He stated that the previous SIM was handed over to the IO ACP Rajveer Malik (PW8), and the new SIM card was activated about 8-10 months before his testimony. He asserted that the previous SIM was handed over to the IO in May or June 2023 when the IO visited Hisar for an investigation, but he was unaware if the IO prepared any document about the seizure of that SIM.
7.3. Similarly, PW2 Rajiv Taneja only testified that the accused worked at their company as an Accountant from 2006 to June 2017 and that the mobile number in question was issued to him. Both PW1 and PW2 identified the accused in court.
PW2 also admitted during his cross-examination that there was no record maintained concerning the provision of SIM cards to employees and that 8 to 9 employees worked in the company.
7.4. Therefore, aside from their bare oral testimonies asserting that the SIM number was provided to the accused, there is no supporting evidence to substantiate it. During the investigation, some mobile bills for the questioned mobile number were also recovered. The mobile bills primarily came from the Taneja brothers, but there was no recovery of mobile bills from the accused.
7.5. Given the lack of CDR or recovery of the mobile phone or SIM card from the accused, the prosecution needed to make an effort to examine at least some independent witnesses to prove that during the relevant time of the video's upload, the accused was using the mobile number in question. Such witnesses could have included other employees of the Taneja brothers or acquaintances of the accused who could confirm that during Judgment dated 03.07.2025, in State Vs. Ravinder; FIR No. 506/2016; PS Sultan Puri; CNR NO. DLCT11-000616-2023; Page 8 of 20 9 the relevant time, he was using that number or communicating through it. This is particularly significant in light of the absence of any record from the Taneja brothers regarding the allocation of mobile numbers from the CUG to different employees. This significance is further heightened due to the fact that the mobile number was reportedly used by another employee, according to the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, indicating that the mobile number remained active even after the date of the purported uploading of the video.
7.6. This is critical, as the following discussion will reveal that the prosecution also failed to demonstrate on which date the video was uploaded, through which digital device, and the fact of uploading the video from the YouTube channel attributed to the accused. Moreover, the prosecution did not establish a connection between the accused and the email ID linked to the creation of the YouTube channel. Therefore, it was vital to demonstrate that the mobile number was indeed available and being used by the accused during that time.
7.7. PW4, the prosecutrix, was completely hostile to the prosecution's case and did not support it at all. She even asserted she was unaware of who the MLA of the area was in 2016 or whether Sandeep Kumar was the MLA of her area. She claimed the police never inquired about any case and that her statement was never recorded. She also denied being taken to the Court of the Ld. Magistrate to record her statement. When she stated that she did not know about the present case, she faced cross-examination from the Ld. Prosecutor, who declared her hostile.
Judgment dated 03.07.2025, in State Vs. Ravinder; FIR No. 506/2016; PS Sultan Puri; CNR NO. DLCT11-000616-2023; Page 9 of 20 10In her cross-examination by the State, she maintained her position, asserting that she never lodged any complaint against Sandeep Kumar, the local MLA of Sultan Puri, on 03.09.2016. She further denied having visited Sandeep Kumar's house or any incident involving an intoxicating substance or the commission of rape or unnatural intercourse while under such influence. She also denied identifying herself or the MLA in the videos played in Court that purportedly contained the sexual act investigated in the FIR.
7.8. PW5 Inspector Rajneesh Kumar was the IO of the case who went to Hisar on 25.06.2022, questioned the Taneja brothers, issued a Notice under section 91 Cr.P.C to PW1 Sunil Taneja (Ext. PW1/A), obtained a reply (Ext. PW1/B), and seized the documents provided by PW1.
In his cross-examination, PW5 conceded that the Taneja brothers did not present any document proving that the mobile in question was given to the accused or that it was being used by the accused. He also acknowledged that even on 25.06.2022, the phone in question was active and being used by another employee of the Taneja brothers. However, he admitted not having inquired about the employee using the mobile phone on that date. He also admitted that the Taneja brothers did not offer any documentary proof to show that the mobile number was assigned to the employee using it on that date.
7.9. PW6 ACP Darare Sharad Bhaskar was also an IO who testified about the complaint given by the prosecutrix on 03.09.2016 (Ext. PW6/A), which led to the registration of the FIR (Ext. PW6/B). This witness narrated his investigative actions, which included recording the statement of the Judgment dated 03.07.2025, in State Vs. Ravinder; FIR No. 506/2016; PS Sultan Puri; CNR NO. DLCT11-000616-2023; Page 10 of 20 11 prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C., the arrest of co-accused Sandeep, and the collection of video footage from various media houses such as Aaj Tak, ABP News, and NDTV, under Notices issued on 06.09.2016 (Ext. PW6/F & G), receipt of one pen drive from ABP News seized under Seizure memo (Ext. PW6/H), a reply with a pen drive from TV Today Network seized via seizure memo (Ext. PW6/J) and the reply (Ext. PW6/I). He stated he issued a Notice under section 91 Cr.P.C. (Ext. PW6/K) to Google Inc. seeking the removal of objectionable material from social media platforms and requesting details of the devices used to upload the objectionable videos. He provided the reply from Google (Ext. PW6/L). He established the fact that various Notices were sent to different mobile service providers to obtain relevant IP addresses, which resulted in replies from the service providers (Ext. PW6/A3, collectively, and Ext. PW6/M). He confirmed sending another Notice (Ext. PW6/M) dated 27.02.2017 to Google Inc. and receiving a reply from them (Ext. PW6/O). Subsequently, he acquired the Customer Application Form (CAF) for Mobile No. 9996028001, allegedly used and reflected in the reply from Google Inc. From the CAF, the Taneja brothers could then be reached. This witness also presented a Certificate under section 65B of the Evidence Act (Ext. PW6/S) and asserted that the video footage collected shows co-accused Sandeep Kumar MLA and the prosecutrix engaging in sexual activity. The pen drive containing such footage is Ext. PW6/U. 7.10. PW7 ACP Mihir Sakaria was also part of the investigation and testified that Inspector Rajneesh Kumar (PW5) conducted the investigation, as instructed by PW7.
Judgment dated 03.07.2025, in State Vs. Ravinder; FIR No. 506/2016; PS Sultan Puri; CNR NO. DLCT11-000616-2023; Page 11 of 20 127.11. PW8 ACP Rajbir Malik conducted part of the investigation and confirmed that on 18.07.2023, under DD entry no. 84A (Ext. PW8/B), he went to Hisar, where Notices (Ext. PW8/C & D) were served upon PW1 & PW2, followed by service of Notice upon the accused (Ext. PW8/E); further inquiries were made from PW1, PW2, and the accused was interrogated. He recounted that during the investigation, the IMEI number of the mobile device in question was put under surveillance, but no data could be collected, and that the data received from the service providers as to the IP addresses qua uploading of videos was compiled under (Ext. PW8/F & 8/G).
He too admitted that the Taneja brothers did not provide any specific date regarding the assignment of the mobile phone in question to the accused, and that there was no documentary evidence available with them to establish the transfer of the mobile phone to and from the accused.
7.12. Turning to the connecting evidence that, according to the prosecution, leads to the accused, i.e., the reply received by the IO from Google Inc. (Ext. PW6/O). This reply allegedly came from Google Inc. following a Notice dated 27.02.2017 (Ext. PW6/N), where several details were requested, including the mobile number, email ID, and IP addresses, as well as the removal of the obscene videos from the nine different YouTube URLs as listed in Ext. PW6/N. 7.13. Strangely, the purported reply (Ext. PW6/4) is neither signed by anyone from Google Inc. nor accompanied by any letter. It solely provides some technical details about the nine videos in question. It does not identify who Judgment dated 03.07.2025, in State Vs. Ravinder; FIR No. 506/2016; PS Sultan Puri; CNR NO. DLCT11-000616-2023; Page 12 of 20 13 prepared or sent this document to the IO or the mode of delivery. Whether it was sent via email or physically is unclear. If this document was sent via email, it lacks the email IDs involved. In such circumstances, the method of introducing this document through the IO is legally improper. When the IO did not execute this document and only allegedly received it, either it should have been signed by someone whose signature the IO could have verified, or it could have been shown as received by email if indeed that was the case.
7.14. If it was sent via email, a section 65B certificate regarding this document was necessary. While PW6 filed a certificate (Ext. PW6/S), it does not comply with Sub-Sections 2 & 4 of Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The certificate states that PW6 had issued Notices under section 91 Cr. P.C. to Google from his official email ID, and that a reply received from Google was included in the file as a printout taken from his laptop.
7.15. However, Ext. PW6/O is at best an attachment printout, and the original email from Google to this IO, along with the email ID, date, time, and contents, are not on record. If Ext. PW6/O was received by email; the IO should have obtained a printout of the email from Google along with a section 65B certificate (such as Ext. PW6/S), which would have made this document admissible.
7.16. In the absence of the email through which Ext. PW6/O was obtained, and a lack of signatures, or even the sender's name, attributing any authenticity to Ext. PW6/O becomes problematic. Law mandates a specific method for proving electronic evidence, which must be adhered to strictly. Without the email, merely presenting the information received in the form of an Judgment dated 03.07.2025, in State Vs. Ravinder; FIR No. 506/2016; PS Sultan Puri; CNR NO. DLCT11-000616-2023; Page 13 of 20 14 attachment is inadequate. It is insufficient for consideration, as the certificate under section 65B does not disclose essential details and description of the devices/printer as required under Sub-Sections 2 & 4 of Section 65B of the Evidence Act. In these circumstances, Ext. PW6/O cannot be regarded as valid due to improper proof.
7.17. The most crucial link needed to substantiate the claim against the accused--that he uploaded one of the objectionable videos to his YouTube channel--rests on the information received from Google Inc. following the communication dated 27.02.2017, wherein details regarding nine different YouTube uploaded videos were requested. Among those nine uploads, one was allegedly associated with the accused. However, the investigating agency did not authenticate the printout of the email received from Google, resulting in only an unsigned attachment being presented in court. As per the certificate under section 65B of the Evidence Act (Ext. PW6/S), the prosecution contends that the Notice (Ext. PW6/N) was emailed to Google Inc. from PW6's official email ID, "[email protected]." It is mentioned in paragraph 2 of the certificate (Ext. PW6/S) that notices were dispatched to Google for metadata pertaining to the objectionable videos, and the reply received from Google was filed as a printout from his official laptop.
7.18. However, the certificate fails to specify which Google email address the notice (Ext. PW6/N) was sent to and from which email address the reply (Ext. PW6/O) was received. Had the prosecution successfully proven a printout of the email from which Ext. PW6/O emanated--be it as part of the body or as an attachment to that email--Ext. PW6/O could have been admitted.
Judgment dated 03.07.2025, in State Vs. Ravinder; FIR No. 506/2016; PS Sultan Puri; CNR NO. DLCT11-000616-2023; Page 14 of 20 157.19. Absence of the email from which this document was derived and lacking sufficient detail in the certificate regarding the digital devices used to obtain and print it means Ext. PW6/O should be treated as unproven. Given that Ext. PW6/O denotes electronic evidence; it must be strictly proven as per Section 65B of the Evidence Act. If Ext. PW6/O is deemed inadmissible due to non-compliance with Section 65 B. As a result, the entire chain connecting the accused becomes severed and lost. PW6 acknowledged that no representative from Google was examined to validate the replies from them.
7.20. Initially, the IO communicated with Google Inc. through email (Ext.
PW6/K) on 08.09.2016, seeking metadata pertaining to the nine objectionable videos on YouTube.com. Google responded with an email dated 21.09.2016, the printout of which is presented as Ext. PW6/L. However, this reply only exhibits the email received and fails to prove the attachment provided within this email. Instead, only the email was submitted as a printout. Subsequently, the communication (Ext. PW6/N) issued on 27.02.2017 sought further information, alleging that Google emailed in response to this notice, and that the details contained within Ext. PW6/O were communicated then. However, here as well, the email received from Google was not attempted to be proven.
7.21. Therefore, regarding the earlier email received from Google, the attachment was not established, while, regarding the second email, only the attachment was exhibited without the corresponding email being validated in response to communication dated 27.02.2017.
Judgment dated 03.07.2025, in State Vs. Ravinder; FIR No. 506/2016; PS Sultan Puri; CNR NO. DLCT11-000616-2023; Page 15 of 20 167.22. Following 27.02.2017, Google allegedly transmitted details that included the user/creator's IP address of the YouTube channel, stating that the creator's IP was 59.90.91.32. In its reply dated 15.10.2016, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) provided information regarding the user of IP address 59.90.91.32. BSNL indicated that Rajiv Taneja was the user of that IP address, located at Shop No. 69-70, Ganesh Market, Hisar, Haryana, with the user starting on "Fri Sep 02 14:20:15 2016" and stopping on "Fri Sep 02 16:27:20 2016." The investigating agency subsequently contacted the Taneja brothers and claimed to identify the accused.
7.23. Assuming Ext. PW6/O were properly proven, it still would be inadequate to connect the accused with the upload of the disputed video. According to Ext. PW6/O, one of the nine videos in question, was uploaded from a YouTube channel with the username "FUNNY HINDI VIDEO CLIPS AND PHOTO." The information provided regarding the video allegedly uploaded by the accused is as follows: one email ID is presented as [email protected]. The email includes numbers that are suspected to correspond to mobile numbers possibly used by the accused. However, the information disclosed by Google does not specify anywhere that a mobile number was used for uploading the video. The YouTube username was created on 15.07.2014, with an end service date of 04.10.2016. The IP address through which this ID was created is purported to be "59.90.91.32."
7.24. Assuming that the mobile number present in the email ID had been used by the user, the police approached PW1 & PW2 since this mobile number was registered in their company. Based on their oral statements, the Judgment dated 03.07.2025, in State Vs. Ravinder; FIR No. 506/2016; PS Sultan Puri; CNR NO. DLCT11-000616-2023; Page 16 of 20 17 accused was implicated. However, as previously mentioned, no proof was collected to establish that the accused was using that mobile, aside from PW1 & PW2's uncorroborated oral testimonies.
7.25. In PW1's examination-in-chief, he indicated that the accused only worked until 2015. The prosecution did not cross-examine him on this point, leaving his testimony unrebutted. If the accused had indeed left employment in 2015, there remains no question of him using the phone for uploads in September 2016. This becomes particularly significant as, according to PW5 Inspector Rajnish Kumar, on the date of his meeting with the Taneja brothers, the mobile in question was active and used by another employee. Furthermore, PW1 acknowledged that the mobile phone in question was being utilised by another employee when he testified. Even PW5 stated that the police did not inquire as to who was using the mobile phone in question on 25.06.2022 and that the Taneja brothers did not provide any documentation regarding the user of the mobile that day. Conversely, PW2 stated that the accused worked with the Taneja brothers until June 2017. This is particularly relevant since no documentary evidence exists in the form of attendance records, salary slips, or a resignation letter to clarify when the accused left the Taneja brothers' employment.
7.26. The mobile could not be recovered. No mobile bill was retrieved from the accused. Moreover, the attempt to monitor that IMEI number yielded no results, and the device could not be traced. PW7 ACP Mihir Sakaria admitted that the source from which the video was created could never be identified, and the mobile phone through which the alleged video was uploaded was not recovered.
Judgment dated 03.07.2025, in State Vs. Ravinder; FIR No. 506/2016; PS Sultan Puri; CNR NO. DLCT11-000616-2023; Page 17 of 20 187.27. Strangely, the investigating agency made no effort to ascertain whether the above-mentioned email ID was created or used by the accused. The mere inclusion of the name 'Ravinder' in the email ID does not allow this court to conclude that it solely belonged to the accused. Countless individuals may share the name Ravinder. Also, it is entirely possible for an email ID to be created and registered under an assumed name and number by anyone. What if this email ID was created by one of the Taneja brothers in the accused's name or by someone else using that identity? In the absence of this essential link that definitively associates the email ID with the accused and coupled with the lack of a mobile phone or other cogent evidence that the accused used this mobile during the relevant time, establishing a conviction becomes difficult. Suspicion, regardless of its validity, cannot substitute for proof.
7.28. Overall, the prosecution has failed to establish that either the mobile number or the email mentioned in the metadata of the disputed video is associated with the accused. Multiple avenues existed for determining whether the accused indeed used that mobile or the email ID, yet the prosecution has not successfully established this connection.
7.29. No information was sought from Google about details concerning the creation of the email ID '[email protected]'. The prosecution seems to have assumed that, given the name Ravinder appeared in the email ID, it must have belonged to the accused. However, with countless individuals named Ravinder, it cannot be claimed that this email ID is definitively linked to the accused.
Judgment dated 03.07.2025, in State Vs. Ravinder; FIR No. 506/2016; PS Sultan Puri; CNR NO. DLCT11-000616-2023; Page 18 of 20 197.30. Likewise, the use of the phone by the accused has not been conclusively proven. As the mobile phone was never recovered, the prosecution has no evidence beyond the metadata purportedly received from Google under Ext. PW6/O. Once that document is deemed unproven, it cannot be utilised. Lastly, considering the lack of metadata indicating the digital device from which the video was uploaded and regarding the IP address, if it could be presumed that the accused used the mobile or the email ID, it remains unestablished how he connects to the crime. Furthermore, the prosecution has not proven the uploaded video from the alleged YouTube channel.
7.31. They obtained videos from two different news channels, namely ABP News and Aaj Tak, through separate seizure memos (Ext. PW6/H & J) dated 06.09.2016 and 07.09.2016, respectively. The pen drive from ABP News was provided by Mr. Vikram, through Mr. Dharambir, who submitted a pen drive containing a copy of the video allegedly prepared by co-accused Sandeep Kumar. Yet, no certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was collected from Vikram or Dharambir, and neither were they examined to validate the provision of those copy video. Similarly, a pen drive sent by Dr. Puneet Jain from Aaj Tak was not accompanied by a section 65B certificate or proof of validity, nor was Mr. Puneet Jain examined.
7.32. Notably, the copies of videos garnered by the investigating agency from the news channels were treated as unproven even in the judgment against co-accused Sandeep Kumar due to the absence of a section 65B certificate, but the prosecution failed to take necessary steps to validate those videos in the current trial.
Judgment dated 03.07.2025, in State Vs. Ravinder; FIR No. 506/2016; PS Sultan Puri; CNR NO. DLCT11-000616-2023; Page 19 of 20 207.33. It is important to note that, aside from the accused, other uploaders of different videos could not be identified during the investigation, as those videos were claimed to have been uploaded from varied locations and IP addresses, but the actual offenders of additional videos remained unidentified.
7.34. In conclusion, the prosecution has not met its burden of proof against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, which is essential for conviction in a criminal trial. Therefore, the accused Ravinder must be acquitted. He is acquitted of the charges.
Digitally
Announced in the open Court DIG
signed by
DIG VINAY
On 03rd July, 2025. VINAY
SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2025.07.03
10:10:00
+0530
(Dig Vinay Singh)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-09,
(MPs-MLAs Cases),
Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi
Judgment dated 03.07.2025, in State Vs. Ravinder; FIR No. 506/2016; PS Sultan Puri; CNR NO. DLCT11-000616-2023; Page 20 of 20