Madhya Pradesh High Court
Naveen Makhija vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 28 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8595 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
NAVEEN MAKHIJA S/O AMARLAL MAKHIJA, AGED
ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O. 145,
SINDHI GURUDWARA NEAR LALMATI DWARKA
NAGAR, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI S.C. CHATURVEDI-ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR THE STATE
CYBER CELL POLICE STATION BHOPAL PRESENTLY
CYBER ZONE RAMPUR DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRASANNAJEET CHATERJEE-P.L. )
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Special Sessions Trial No.108/2017 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 66B and 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and sentenced to undergo one year R.I.-one year RI and fine of Rs.10,000/- -Rs.10,000/- and in default to further undergo RI for two months-two months on both counts.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETI TIWARI Signing time: 12/29/2023 8:17:51 PM 2 prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial, the appellant remained in custody since 16.7.2017 to 17.7.2017. He prayed for acquittal of the appellant.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State supported the judgment and submitted that the prosecution has duly proved the incident and the learned Sessions Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 66B & 66C of Information Technology Act, 2000.
4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal of record, it appears that complainant lodged a report at Cyber Cell against the present appellant stating that the present appellant has prepared a fake profile of the complainant on Facebook and uploaded her vulgar photographs and vulgar messages on the facebook and defamed her publicly. Upon complaint of the complainant, Cyber Cell registered the offence under Section 468 of the IPC and 66B & 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and after investigation and collection of evidence filed the charge-sheet against the appellant. The prosecution examined six witnesses to prove the involvement of the appellant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by judgment dated 26.10.2018 convicted the appellant under Section 66B &66C of the Information Technology Act and sentenced him as stated herein above.
5. After going through the record and statements of the witnesses, it appears that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge are based on due appreciation of evidence and it was proved by cogent evidence that State Cyber Police Zone, Jabalpur collected the information that the appellant has created a fake Facebook ID of the complainant and by using the said profile, he shared obscene photos, malicious message and obscene messages, I do not find any Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETI TIWARI Signing time: 12/29/2023 8:17:51 PM 3 reason to interfere in the finding recorded by the Sessions Court and the conviction under Section 66B and 66C of the IT Act is upheld.
6. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year 2015, the age of the appellant was 23 years at the time of commission of offence, the prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellants on record, there is no minimum sentence has been prescribed under Sections 66B & 66C of Indian Penal Code, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of the appellant to the extent of the period which he had already undergone and accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced. However, fine is enhanced from Rs.10,000-10000/- to Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/-. The appellant shall deposit the enhanced amount within a period of two months from today. The appellant is on bail, his personal bonds and bail bonds be discharged. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
7. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of judgment.
(VINAY SARAF) V. JUDGE P/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETI TIWARI Signing time: 12/29/2023 8:17:51 PM