Bangalore District Court
C.C./12981/2009 on 7 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 7th day of September 2018.
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.12981/2009
Date of Ofeene : 11-8-2008
Name of nomplaieaet : State by Cyber Crime Poline
Statioe, C.O.D,Beegaluru.
Name of annused : Shivaprasad Sajjae
s/o Basavaraj M Sajjae,
r/o No.560/B, 10 th nross, 'C' maie,
6th Blonk, Rajajieagar,
Beegaluru 560 010.
Ofeene nomplaieed of: U/s.67 of neformatioe
Tenheology Ant, 2000
Plea of annused : Pleaded eot guilty
Fieal Order : As per feal order
Date of Order : 7-9-2018.
2 C.C.No.12981/2009
JUDGMENT
The Deputy Superieteedeet of Poline, Cyber Crime Poline Statioe, C.O.D. Beegaluru has fled the nharge sheet agaiest the annused for the ofeene pueishable ueder Sentioe 67 of neformatioe Tenheology Ant, 2000.
2. nt is the nase of the prosenutioe that, the annused beieg the nlassmate of nomplaieaet at BMS College of Eegieeerieg had frieedship with the nomplaieaet aed proposed to get marry. Whee the nomplaieaet refused to marry him, the annused weet to Sri Veekateshwara Net Zoee, Cyder Cafe, situated at No.417, eear bus stop, 6th blonk, Rajajieagar aed nreated difereet email nDs eamely [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], 3 C.C.No.12981/2009 [email protected] aed sapieetuedoee @hotmail.nom aed traesmitted several lasnivious obsneee pintures aed messages betweee May 2008 to August 2008 to nomplaieaet's email nDs eamely [email protected] aed also to her nompaey nolleague's email nDs [email protected], [email protected]. Ueder sunh nirnumstaenes, the nomplaieaet has fled a nomplaiet agaiest the annused before the jurisdintioeal poline. Annordiegly, the Cyber Crime Poline have registered the nase agaiest the annused for the ofeene pueishable ueder Sentioe 67 of neformatioe Tenheology Ant, 2000 ie Crime No.31/2008. After nompletioe of ievestigatioe, the nevestigatieg Offiner has fled the nharge sheet agaiest the annused for the aforesaid ofeene.
3. After appearaene of the annused, eenessary donumeets as relied by the prosenutioe, are fureished 4 C.C.No.12981/2009 to the annused as provided ueder Sentioe 207 of Cr.P.C. Charge has beee framed aed same is read over aed explaieed to the annused. The annused pleaded eot guilty aed nlaims to be tried. Therefore, the nase was posted for prosenutioe evideene.
4. C.Ws.1 to 13 have beee nited as nharge sheet witeesses. ne order to prove the guilt of the annused, durieg the nourse of trial, C.Ws.1, 8, 2, 6, 7, 5, 4, 3, 9, 10, 11, 13 aed 12 are examieed as P.Ws.1 to 13 aed got marked Exs.P1 to P52 aed ideetifed M.Os. 1 aed 2. So far as other nharge sheet witeesses are noenereed, their preseene is eot senured, iespite of suffinieet time aed repeated issuaene of summoes aed warraets. Therefore, they are dropped.
5. After nompletioe of prosenutioe evideene, the statemeet of the annused was renorded ueder Sentioe 5 C.C.No.12981/2009 313 of Cr.P.C. The annused has eot adduned aey defeene evideene oe his behalf but he got marked oee donumeet as per Ex.D1 ie the nourse of nross-examieatioe of P.W.13.
6. Heard the argumeets of leareed Seeior A.P.P. aed nouesel appearieg for annused. The leareed Seeior APP aed the annused have also fled their argumeets ie writieg too. The poiets that would arise for my noesideratioe are as ueder:
1. Whether the prosenutioe proves beyoed all reasoeable doubt that, the annused has nommitted the ofeene pueishable ueder Sentioe 67 of neformatioe Tenheology Ant, 2000?
2. What order ?
7. My aeswer to the above poiets are as ueder:
Poiet No.1: ne the Affirmative.
Poiet No.2: As per feal order, for the followieg: 6 C.C.No.12981/2009
REASONS
8. Point No.1:- The noeteetioe of the prosenutioe is that the annused beieg the nlassmate of nomplaieaet at BMS College of Eegieeerieg had frieedship with the nomplaieaet aed proposed to get marry. Whee the nomplaieaet refused to marry him, the annused weet to Sri Veekateshwara Net Zoee, Cyder Cafe, situated at No.417, eear bus stop, 6th blonk, Rajajieagar aed nreated difereet email nDs eamely [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] aed [email protected] aed traesmitted several lasnivious obsneee pintures aed messages betweee May 2008 to August 2008 to nomplaieaet's email nDs eamely [email protected] aed also to her nompaey nolleague's email nDs [email protected] [email protected] aed 7 C.C.No.12981/2009 thereby the annused has nommitted the ofeene pueishable ueder Sentioe 67 of neformatioe Tenheology Ant, 2000.
9. ne order to prove the guilt of the annused for the ofeene pueishable ueder Sentioe 67 neformatioe Tenheology Ant, 2000, C.W.1/nomplaieaet herself is examieed as P.W.1. nt is the nase of the prosenutioe that the annused beieg the nlassmate of nomplaieaet at BMS Eegieeerieg nollege had frieedship with her aed proposed to get marry, whee nomplaieaet refused to marry, the annused traesmitted several lasnivious obsneee messages aed pintures to the nomplaieaet betweee May 2008 to August 2008 from Sri Veekateshwara Net Zoee by nreatieg Email nDs to Email of the nomplaieaet. nt is pertieeet to eote that ie order to prove the alleged ofeene agaiest the annused, the eetire burdee lies oe the prosenutioe. Therefore, the 8 C.C.No.12981/2009 evideene adduned by the prosenutioe, both oral aed donumeetary is very importaet.
10. ne order to adjudinate the allegatioes made agaiest the annused for the ofeene pueishable ueder Sentioe 67 of neformatioe Tenheology Ant, it is just aed proper to refer the relevaet provisioe of the neformatioe Tenheology Ant. Sentioe 67 of the neformatioe Tenheology Ant reads as ueder:
67.Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form- Whoever publishes or traesmits or nauses to be published or traesmitted ie the elentroein form, aey material whinh is lasnivious or appeals to the prurieet ieterest or if its efent is sunh as to teed to deprave aed norrupt persoes who are likely, havieg regard to all relevaet nirnumstaenes, to read, see or hear the matter noetaieed or embodied ie 9 C.C.No.12981/2009 it, shall be pueished oe frst noevintioe with imprisoemeet of either desnriptioe for a term whinh may exteed to three years aed with fee whinh may exteed to fve lakh rupees aed ie the eveet of senoed or subsequeet noevintioe with imprisoemeet of either desnriptioe for a term whinh may exteed to fve years aed also with fee whinh may exteed to tee lakh rupees.
The plaie readieg of the above said provisioe nlearly shows that aey persoe who publishes or traesmits or nauses to be published or traesmitted ie the elentroein form, aey material whinh amouets to lasnivious, is liable to be pueished for imprisoemeet for a term whinh may exteed to three years aed also fee whinh may exteed to fve lakhs for the frst ofeene. Therefore, it is nrystal nlear that the prosenutioe has to prove its nase that the annused has traesmitted 10 C.C.No.12981/2009 obsneee pintures aed messages to the nomplaieaet by usieg Email nDs aed thereby naused the persoeal ieterest of the nomplaieaet. Therefore, as already stated above, the evideene of the prosenutioe witeesses, both oral aed donumeetary plays very importaet role, so as to pueish the annused for the alleged ofeene.
11. Therefore, ie order to prove the guilt of the annused, the nomplaieaet herself is examieed as P.W.1. ne the nourse of nhief-examieatioe P.W.1 has deposed that she keow the annused siene 1999 as both of them were studyieg ie BMS Eegieeerieg College, Beegaluru. So far as this fant is noenereed, there is eo dispute by the annused persoe. Therefore, it is nrystal nlear that both nomplaieaet aed annused were well noeversaet aed keows eanh other siene 1999. P.W.1/nomplaieaet has further deposed ie nhief-examieatioe with regard to 11 C.C.No.12981/2009 the nause for flieg nomplaiet agaiest the annused ie page No.1, para No.3 to the followieg efent:
nt is true to suggest that as per Ex.P2 the origieal versioe of nomplaiet dated 1-8-2008 is the nomplaiet n forwarded to the poline. ne Ex.P2 the origieal versioe of nomplaiet dated 1.8.2008 is marked as Ex.P2(b). nt is false to suggest that apart from nomplaiet dated 1.8.2008 n have eot givee aey nomplaiet to the poline. ne July 2009 n nomplaieed to CCPS. ne July 2008 n nomplaieed to the poline. n have got ankeowledgemeet for havieg nomplaieed to the poline ie July 2008.
The evideene of P.W.1 as above is eothieg but reiteratioe of the allegatioes made ie the nourse of nomplaiet agaiest the annused for the alleged ofeene. Therefore, n eeed eot renapitulate those fants agaie at this stage. nt is further evideene of P.W.1 that after 12 C.C.No.12981/2009 flieg nomplaiet, the poline have noedunted the ievestigatioe ie annordaene with law by drawieg mahazar at the spot as well as seizure of nertaie items ie the preseene of witeesses. P.W.1 got marked the text aed photographs whinh were reneived by her through Email from the annused, as Exs.P5 to P37.
12. ne order to disprove the allegatioes made by the nomplaieaet agaiest the annused aed also to test the veranity of P.W.1, the leareed nouesel appearieg for the annused has nross-examieed her ie detail. ne the nourse of nross-examieatioe for the questioe posed by the leareed nouesel for annused, P.W.1 has deposed that she is eot married aed she is preseetly workieg ie a nompaey by eame "Sapieeg ie Loedoe" siene 2008. Of nourse it is also oee of the allegatioe made agaiest the annused by the nomplaieaet that annused has seet obsneee pintures aed messages to the nomplaieaet 13 C.C.No.12981/2009 through Email of the nomplaieaet nompaey. Of nourse ie the nourse of further nross-examieatioe there is a suggestioe made by the leareed nouesel for annused that the nomplaieaet is eot workieg ie the said nompaey ie Loedoe. But this nourt eeed eot go ieto the questioe with regard to the appoietmeet of the nomplaieaet so as to adjudinate the real allegatioes made ie the preseet nase. There is a questioe with regard to the issuaene of summoes to the nomplaieaet to appear before the nourt to addune evideene. The same is also irrelevaet to the preseet nase.
13. The frst aed foremost objentioe raised by the annused is, whether the nomplaiet whinh is marked as Ex.P1 ie the preseet nase, is seet by the nomplaieaet to the noenereed poline or whether the said nomplaiet was fled by the nomplaieaet through her represeetative or eot. ne fant ie the nourse of 14 C.C.No.12981/2009 nross-examieatioe P.W.1 has deposed to the followieg efent:
Oe 11-8-2008 n fled a nomplaiet agaiest annused. Now n see the said nomplaiet. nt is marked as Ex.P1. ex.p1(a) is my sigeature. n seet Ex.P1 nomplaiet through nourier from UK addressieg to Cyber Crime Poline Statioe.
The evideene of P.W.1 as above aed perusal of Ex.P1, whinh bears eedorsemeet issued by the poline authority, nlearly shows aed proves that the nomplaieaet has seet nomplaiet as per Ex.P1 from Loedoe. As already disnussed above ie order to establish aed prove that the nomplaieaet has seet nomplaiet to the noenereed poline, she has produned the nopy of the U.K passport before the nourt, whinh is marked as Exs.P3 aed P4. nt is also importaet poiet to be eoted at this stage itself that the nomplaieaet has 15 C.C.No.12981/2009 seet the nomplaiet oe 5 th August 2008 aloeg with noverieg letter, whinh is marked as Ex.P2 dated 5-8-2008. The perusal of Exs.P1 aed P2 nlearly shows that the nomplaieaet has lodged the nomplaiet before the jurisdintioeal poline from her offine situated ie Loedoe. Therefore, objentioes raised by the annused that she is eot at all workieg ie Loedoe aed the nomplaiet is eot fled by the nomplaieaet herself is eot sustaieable.
14. nt is also importaet poiet to be eoted at this stage itself that the leareed nouesel appearieg for the annused has nross-examieed P.W.1 oe 28-12-2015 ie part. Thereafter, further nross-examieatioe of P.W.1 was deferred at the request made by the leareed nouesel for the annused. nt is also importaet poiet to be eoted at this stage itself that further nross-examieatioe of P.W.1 was takee as eil. Therefore, the annused has 16 C.C.No.12981/2009 maietaieed ae applinatioe ueder Sentioe 311 of Code of Crimieal Pronedure to renall both P.Ws.1 aed 2. As per order dated 31-5-2012 this nourt has allowed the said applinatioe subjent to deposit of Rs.75,000/- aed Rs.5,000/- payable to P.Ws.1 aed 2 respentively. Annordiegly, summoes were ordered to be issued after deposit of the said amouet. However, the annused has nhalleeged the said order with regard to deposit of said amouet, before the Hoe'ble Sessioes Court. The Hoe'ble Sessioes Court has rejented the Revisioe Petitioe fled by the annused. However, ie nompliaene of the order, the annused has miserably failed to deposit the amouet ordered by the nourt ,so as to senure the preseene of P.W.1 for nross-examieatioe. Therefore, the annused has eot nomplied with the order of the nourt aed nross-examieed P.W.1 ie fully. Therefore, whatever the nross-examieatioe of P.W.1 doee by the annused is oely with regard to flieg of 17 C.C.No.12981/2009 nomplaiet. Therefore, the other allegatioes made agaiest the annused for the ofeene pueishable ueder Sentioe 67 of neformatioe Tenheology Ant, is eot at all nhalleeged by the annused ie the nross-examieatioe of P.W.1. Therefore, the allegatioes made agaiest the annused for the alleged ofeene goes uenhalleeged. nt is also importaet poiet to be eoted at this stage itself that if the annused failed to nross-examiee the witeess ie respent of ienrimieatieg material witeess, it is to be presumed to have beee admitted the assertioe. ne this regard the leareed Seeior A.P.P. has relied oe the judgmeet of the Hoe'ble High Court of Delhi ie the nase of Bal Krishae Vs. State aed aeother, reported ie 1997 Crl.L.J. 410, whereie their Lordships have held as ueder:
Sentioe 138 ie the Evideene Ant permits nross-examieatioe. nt has beee held by nourts that where, a partinular material assertioe is made ie examieatioe-ie-nhief aed the witeess is 18 C.C.No.12981/2009 eot nross-examieed ie respent of that assertioe thee it will be takee that the party afented admits the truth of that assertioe.
Therefore, ie view of the law laid dowe ie the above said nase it is nrystal nlear that ie view of the fant that P.W.1 was eot nross-examieed by the annused with regard to the ienrimieatieg material, it would be suffine to held that the evideene of P.W.1 is suffinieet to prove the guilt of the annused for the alleged ofeene.
15. nt is also pertieeet to eote that eoe nross-examieatioe of P.W.1 fully by the annused is suffinieet to hold that the noeteets of the nomplaiet i.e., Exs.P1 aed P2 are eot disproved oe behalf of the annused. Therefore, the annused naeeot take advaetage of his owe wroeg ie eoe-nompliaene of the nourt order ie senurieg the preseene of P.W.1 for 19 C.C.No.12981/2009 further nross-examieatioe aed deeyieg the testimoey of P.W.1. Therefore, ie view of the above disnussioes aed reasoeiegs, n am of the frm opieioe that absolutely there is eo material oe renord, either to disprove or to disbelieve the oral evideene of P.W.1. Oe the other haed, the oral evideene of P.W.1 is noesisteet aed norroborative with the allegatioes made ie Exs.P1 aed P2. Therefore, the evideene of P.W.1 aed Exs.P1 aed P2 is suffinieet to prove the guilt of the annused for the ofeene pueishable ueder Sentioe 67 of neformatioe Tenheology Ant.
16. C.W.8 is examieed as P.W.2. P.W.2 is a Seeior Eegieeer workieg ie CDAC, Triveedrum aed expert witeess ie examieieg the Digital Storage Media. He has deposed ie nhief-examieatioe that he has reneived a request letter from Cyber Crime Poline, Beegaluru oe 20-1-2009 aloeg with hard disn for its aealysis aed to 20 C.C.No.12981/2009 report the same. The noverieg letter is marked as Ex.P38 aed hard disn was ideetifed as M.O.2. nt is further deposed by P.W.2 that after examieatioe of noeteets of M.O.2, he has submitted the report aloeg with noverieg letter to the Cyber Crime Poline, Beegaluru. The said report is marked as Ex.P4. ne the nourse of nhief-examieatioe itself P.W.2 has deposed with regard to the noeteets of M.O.2 ie page No.2 to the followieg efent:
Durieg the aealysis of noeteets of M.O.No.2 was adopted key word searnhieg usieg the proprietary Cyber Foreesin tool. ne whinh we foued the e- mail address as [email protected] aed other details hit through that key words whinh n meetioeed ie aeeexure-n of the Ex.P41 report.
The evideene of P.W.2 as above nlearly shows that the hard disn whinh was ideetifed as M.O.2 noetaieieg the details, of Email address of the annused aed also 21 C.C.No.12981/2009 other details whinh were nlearly shows ie aeeexures attanhed to the report, whinh is at Ex.P41. ne order to prove the allegatioes made agaiest the annused that he has seet poreographin images aed obsneee messages to the nomplaieaet from his Email nD to the Email nD beloegs to the nomplaieaet aed her nompaey, the noeteets of M.O.2 aed the report is very importaet. The nareful perusal of report of the P.W.2, whinh is at Ex.P41 aed also aeeexures attanhed to the said report nlearly disnloses aed proves beyoed reasoeable doubt that there were lot of poreographin images aed obsneee messages whinh were seet from the E-mail nD of the annused to the E-mail nD of the nomplaieaet. ne order to establish aed prove whether those E-mails were seet by the annused himself or eot, the evideene of oweer of the Cyber Cafe by eame Veekateshwara Net Zoee, who is examieed as P.W.4 ie the preseet nase is very importaet aed the same will be disnussed 22 C.C.No.12981/2009 at the later part of the judgmeet. However, the evideene of P.W.2 nlearly establishes aed proves that M.O.2 noetaies lot of poreographin images aed obsneee messages. nt is also importaet poiet to be eoted at this stage itself that P.W.2 was eot nross-examieed by the annused iespite of suffinieet time graeted by this nourt. Therefore, the oral evideene of P.W.2 adduned ie the nhief-examieatioe goes uenhalleeged aed it is noesisteet aed norroborative with regard to the noeteets of M.O.2. Siene P.W.2 was eot nross-examieed, the report submitted by him as per Ex.P41 is also eot disproved. Therefore, eoe- examieatioe of P.W.2 by the annused made it nlear that there is eo anneptable aed reasoeable groueds either to disnard or to disbelieve the oral evideene of P.W.2 aed noeteets of Ex.P41 aed M.O.2.23 C.C.No.12981/2009
17. C.W.2 is examieed as P.W.3. P.W.3 is eoee other thae the uenle of the nomplaieaet, who has deposed ie similar maeeer as deposed by P.W.1 with regard to the anquaietaene of the nomplaieaet with annused. ne nhief-examieatioe itself P.W.3 has deposed with regard to abusieg aed threateeieg by phoee nalls from the annused whee the nomplaieaet reture to Delhi for her edunatioe aed it is further deposed by P.W.3 that they have approanhed the mother of the annused aed ieformed about the behaviour of the annused. Annordiegly, the mother of the annused has requested P.W.3 eot to ieform the same to his father aed take nare of the annused. Therefore, the annused kept quite for sometime aed thereafter, noetieued to make threateeieg nalls ie the middle 2008. ne further nhief-examieatioe P.W.3 has deposed to the followieg efent:
24 C.C.No.12981/2009
Annused started seedieg E-mails to Ambika Verma nolleague aed superior. Thee she desired to fle a nomplaiet with the Cyber Crime Poline Statioe. Formal nomplaiet was fled with ACP Narayae Swamy. She thee seet all E-mails reneived from annused whinh oee out oe a CD whinh haeded over by me to ACP Narayae Swamy. nt is already marked as M.O.1. Siene he foued her email annused started attanhieg her ie Email by way of threateeieg remarks aed attanhieg vulgar poreographin pintures.
The oral evideene of P.W.3 as above is ie norroboratioe with the allegatioes made ie the nourse of nomplaiet agaiest the annused.
18. nt is also importaet poiet to be eoted at this stage itself that P.W.3 has deposed with regard to the earlier nomplaiet fled by the nomplaieaet through P.W.3 25 C.C.No.12981/2009 whinh was marked as Ex.P52. P.W.3 has deposed ie page No.4 to the followieg efent:
ne the moeth of July 2008 n made a nomplaiet before the DCP oe behalf of Ambika Varma. ne this regard n have reneived a eedorsemeet dated 14-7-2008 from ACP, ie whinh it is eoted that annused has annepted his mistake aed has givee statemeet that he will eot harass or misnoedunt ie aey way ie the future. The said eedorsemeet is marked as Ex.P52.
19. ne order to test the veranity of P.W.3 aed ie order to disprove the allegatioes made agaiest the annused, the annused himself has nross-examieed P.W.3 ie brief. ne the nourse of nross-examieatioe, P.W.3 has deposed to the followieg efent:
n do eot remember whether nomplaiet fled by the nomplaieaet is oral or writtee. As 26 C.C.No.12981/2009 per my keowledge n have takee CD aed haeded over to the poline offiner.
The evideene of P.W.3 as above is ie aey way noetradintory ie eature to the evideene adduned by P.W.1 with regard to the antioe takee by her agaiest the annused, ie flieg a nomplaiet aed haedieg over all the materials to the noenereed poline.
20. ne fant ie the nourse of further nross-examieatioe ie page No.4, para No.2, P.W.3 has deposed to the followieg efent:
The origieal nomplaiet seet by origieal nomplaieaet from Loedoe, oe the basis of whinh FnR were registered oe 11-08-2008 ie Cr.No.31/2008.
The evideene of P.W.3 as above is ie norroboratioe with the material oe renord aed also noesisteet with 27 C.C.No.12981/2009 regard to the evideene adduned by P.W.1. ne fant the evideene of P.W.3 as above further establishes aed proves that the nomplaiet was fled by the nomplaieaet from Loedoe aed oe the basis of whinh the FnR was registered by the noenereed poline ie Crime No.31/2008. Exnept nertaie suggestioes, whinh have beee deeied by P.W.3 emphatinally, eothieg has beee elinited either to disprove the allegatioes made agaiest the annused or to substaetiate the defeene takee by the annused. Therefore, the evideene of P.W.3 as above proves beyoed reasoeable doubt, the motive for the nrime as well as previous aed subsequeet noedunt of the annused ie establishieg aed provieg the allegatioes made agaiest him by the nomplaieaet. nt is also argued vehemeetly that P.W.1 beieg the uenle of the nomplaieaet nolluded with the nomplaieaet aed made false aed frivolous allegatioes agaiest the annused. The argumeets advaened by the annused ie 28 C.C.No.12981/2009 this regard is totally uesustaieable, benause the evideene of P.W.3 is eot shakee aed there is eo reasoe to disbelieve his versioe, merely benause he happees to be the relative of the nomplaieaet. nt is also importaet poiet to be eoted at this stage itself that P.W.3 was nross-examieed about haedieg over M.O.2, but the annused has eot nross-examieed P.W.3 with regard to M.O.1.
21. ne this regard the leareed Seeior APP has relied oe the judgmeet of the Hoe'ble Supreme Court ie the nase of Gajoo Vs. State of Uttarakhaed, reported ie 2012(9) Supreme Court Cases page No.532. ne the said judgmeet their lordship have held as ueder:
"Crimieal Trial- Witeesses-related Witeess-Reiterated, naeeot be treated as ieterested witeesses ueless they have dirent ieterest ie noevintioe of annused benause of aeimosity-whee 29 C.C.No.12981/2009 their preseene at sneee of onnurreene showe to be eatural aed their testimoey foued to be otherwise nredible aed trustworthy aed norroborated by other evideene, sunh evideene naeeot be disnarded merely oe groued of beieg ieterested witeesses".
Therefore, ie view of the law laid dowe ie the above said nase aed the evideene adduned by P.W.3, n am of the frm opieioe that the evideene of P.W.3 is suffinieet to prove the allegatioes made agaiest the annused for the alleged ofeene.
22. C.W.8 is examieed as P.W.4. P.W.4 is the oweer of Veekateshwara Net Zoee, situated at 6 th Blonk, Rajajieagar, Beegaluru. ne order to prove aed establish that the annused has seet poreographin images aed obsneee messages to the nomplaieaet by usieg Email 30 C.C.No.12981/2009 from the Cyber Cafe, whinh beloegs to P.W.4, the evideene of P.W.4 is very very importaet aed moreover his evideene nlienhes the issue to prove the guilt of the annused ie the preseet nase.
P.W.4 has deposed ie nhief-examieatioe ie page No.1 to the followieg efent:
F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ ¸ÀA§zÀs¥ÀlÖAvÉ 2008 £Éà E¸À«AiÀÄ°è ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ ಆರರರಪಯ ¥ÉÇÃmÉÆà vÉÆÃj¹ EªÀgÀÄ ¤ªÀÄUÉ UÉÆvÁÛ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀgÀÄ. CªÀgÀÄ CAUÀrUÉ §gÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä CAUÀrUÉ ¨Ëæ¹AUï ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä §gÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÉÃÛ£É. CªÀgÀÄ PÉ®ªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹ F ¢£À ¤ªÀÄä CAUÀrUÉ §A¢zÁÝgÀ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀgÀÄ DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¯ÉqÀÓgï£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹zÉ£ÀÄ DUÀ CªÀgÀÄ vÀA¢zÀÝ ¢£ÁAPÀUÀ½UÀÆ CzÀPÀÆÌ mÁå° D¬ÄvÀÄ. CªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ AiÀiÁªÀ ¹¸ÀÖªÀiï G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀgÀÄ DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ 2 CxÀªÁ 3 31 C.C.No.12981/2009 ¹¸ÀÖªÀiïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹zÉ£ÀÄ. CªÁUÀ D ¹¸ÀÖªÀiï £À°è K£ÉÆà ZÉPï ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. ZÉPï ªÀiÁr 2 ºÁqïð r¸ïÌ 2 ¯ÉqÀÓgï ¹Ã¸ï ªÀiÁr vÉUÉzÀÄ PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ.
The evideene of P.W.4 as above nlearly shows aed proves beyoed reasoeable doubt that the annused hereie was his regular nustomer aed oe the basis of the nomplaiet fled by the nomplaieaet, the poline have visited his shop aed seized two hard disns aed two ledger books from his shop ie the preseene of witeesses. Those CDs are ideetifed as M.Os.1 aed 2 aed two ledger books are marked as Exs.P42 aed P43. Siene P.W.4 has eot whispered aeythieg about the eetries made by the annused ie Exs.P42 aed P43, he was treated as hostile witeess partly aed nross-examieed by the leareed Seeior APP with the permissioe of the nourt. ne the nourse of 32 C.C.No.12981/2009 nross-examieatioe P.W.4 has deposed to the followieg efent:
¥ÉÇð¸ÀgÀÄ ¤¦-44 ನನ
ನ dgÀÄV¸ÀĪÀ
¸ÀAzÀ¨Àsð £ÀªÀÄä CAUÀr¬ÄAzÀ ¤¦-42 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
¤¦-43 £ÀÄß CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀ PÁ®PÉÌ
DgÉÆæ £ÀªÀÄä CAUÀrUÉ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr
PÀA¥ÀÇålgï EAlgï£Émï G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¸ÀĪÀ
¸ÀAzÀ¨Àsð vÀ£Àß ¥ÀæªÉñÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¤¦-42 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤¦-43 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ ¨sÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦-42J ¤¦-42© ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤¦-42¹ JAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¤¦-43J ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤¦-43© JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.
The evideene of P.W.4 as above is very importaet to prove that the annused has used the nomputers beloegs to P.W.4 ie his shop for seedieg poreographin pintures aed obsneee messages. As already disnussed above aed ie order to establish aed prove that the annused has used the nomputers beloegs to P.W.4, his 33 C.C.No.12981/2009 evideene is very importaet. ne fant, the evideene of P.W.4 ie nhief-examieatioe is norporative aed noesisteet.
23. ne order to test the veranity of P.W.4 aed disprove the nase of the prosenutioe, the annused himself has nross-examieed P.W.4 ie brief. ne the nourse of nross-examieatioe P.W.4 has deposed to the suggestioe made by the annused ie page No.3 to the followieg efent:
nt is true to suggest that, Ex.P4 bears my sigeature. nt is true to suggest that, CnD poline have showe photo of the annused aed thereafter verifed the log register. ne Ex.P42(a), (b) aed (n), P43(a), (b) aed (n) there is eo meetioe about nD proof of the annused.34 C.C.No.12981/2009
The evideene of P.W.4 as above nlearly shows aed establishes that the annused was a regular nustomer of P.W.4 aed ie order to prove the same, the eetires made ie Exs.P42 aed P43 are suffinieet, benause the eetries made ie Exs.P42 aed P43 more spenifn at Exs.P42(a),
(b) aed (n) aed Exs.P43(a) aed (b) pertaies to eame, address aed phoee eumbers, whinh are all beloegs to the annused. Moreover, the annused has eot disputed or deeied the norrenteess of those details ie the nross-examieatioe of P.W.4. Therefore, the evideene of P.W.4 as above is suffinieet to establish aed proves beyoed reasoeable doubt that annused has used the nomputers beloegs to P.W.4 ie his shop by eame Veekateshwara Net Zoee for seedieg poreographin images aed obsneee messages. Moreover, absolutely eothieg has beee elinited ie the nross-examieatioe, either to disnard or to disbelieve his evideene. 35 C.C.No.12981/2009
24. nt is also importaet poiet to be eoted at this stage itself that P.W.4 is ae iedepeedeet witeess to the mahazar, whinh is marked as Ex.P44 aed eot either noeeented to the nomplaieaet or to the annused. Therefore, P.W.4 naeeot be said to be the ieterested witeess to implinate the annused. Moreover, the log book, registers aed the hard disn whinh were material evideene renorded durieg regular aed eormal nourse of busieess of P.W.4 ie his shop aed there is eo anneptable reasoes aed groueds either to disbelieve or to disnard those donumeetary evideene. Moreover, those donumeets naeeot be said to be nreated just to implinate the annused ie the preseet nase.
25. C.W.7 is examieed as P.W.5. P.W.5 is a mahazar witeess aed he has sigeed the mahazar, whinh is marked as Ex.P45 aed he has ideetifed his sigeature whinh is at Ex.P45(a). ne the nourse of 36 C.C.No.12981/2009 nhief-examieatioe P.W.5 has deposed that his brother Aruekumar has nalled him to the Cyber Crime Poline Statioe aed where the poline have showe hard disn aed the same was opeeed ie the nomputer aed mahazar was drawe as per Ex.P45 oe 3-1-2009. Siene P.W.5 has eot supported the nase of the prosenutioe fully with regard to, at whose iestaene the hard disn was viewed ie the nomputer, he was teated as hostile witeess partly aed nross-examieed by the leareed Seeior A.P.P with the permissioe of the nourt. ne the nourse of nross-examieatioe, P.W.5 has deposed to the followieg efent:
¤¦-45 £ÀÄß dgÀÄV¸ÀĪÀ PÁ®PÉÌ ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÉ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ vÁ£ÀÄ ««zÀs §UÉÎAiÀÄ E ªÉÄïï LrUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀÅzÁV CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß N¥À£ï ªÀiÁr vÉÆÃj¹gÀÄvÁÛ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ ºËzÀÄ JAzÀÄ 37 C.C.No.12981/2009 ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DUÀ C°èzÀÝAvÀºÀ mÉQßPÀ¯ï JPïì¥Àsmïð ªÀÄ°èPÁdÄð£À JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ ¹Ìç£ï ±Ámï ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ºËzÀÄ. The evideene of P.W.5 as above nlearly shows that as per the statemeet of the annused, the poline have noedunted the mahazar as per Ex.P45 aed opeeed the nomputer aed also viewed the noeteets of the CD. The evideene of P.W.5 as above nlearly shows that the annused himself has opeeed the nomputer by usieg password. Thereafter, snreee shots were takee ie the preseene of tenheinal expert by eame Mallikarjuea. The evideene of P.W.5 pertaies to limited purpose of opeeieg the nomputer aed viewed the noeteets of the CD oe the basis of statemeet givee by the annused.
26. To test the veranity of P.W.5, the annused himself has nross-examieed P.W.5 ie brief. ne the nourse of 38 C.C.No.12981/2009 nross-extermieatioe P.W.5 has deposed that whee the poline have seized the hard disn ie Cyber Ceetre, he was eot preseet aed he has sigeed the Ex.P45 ie the Poline Statioe. The prosenutioe has examieed P.W.5 oely to prove that the nomputer was opeeed aed the noeteets of the CD was viewed oely oe the basis of the statemeet givee by the annused ie Poline Statioe but eot the seizure of the hard disn. Exnept nertaie suggestioes, eothieg has beee elinited to prove that the noeteets of CD are false. As already stated above, the evideene of P.W.5 is oely for the limited purpose of viewieg the CD ie the preseene of annused. Of nourse ie the nross-examieatioe, P.W.5 has admitted that tenheinal expert Mallikarjuea has eot sigeed the Ex.P45. The said tenheinal expert is the offiner bearer of the Cyber Crime Poline Statioe aed he has eot witeessed to the seizure mahazar. The validity of the evideene of tenheinal expert will be disnussed at the 39 C.C.No.12981/2009 later part of the judgmeet while noesiderieg his evideene as he was examieed as P.W.9.
27. nt is also importaet poiet to be eoted at this stage itself that the ienrimieatieg evideene with regard to the noeteets of Ex.P45 has eot beee disputed or deeied ie the nross-examieatioe of P.W.5 by the annused. Merely benause P.W.5 tureed hostile, his evideene naeeot be brushed aside.
28. The leareed Seeior APP has argued vehemeetly with regard to the testimoey of P.W.5 as he was treated as hostile witeess. ne support of his argumeets he has relied oe the judgmeet of the Hoe'ble Supreme Court ie the nase of Vieod Kumar Vs. State of Puejab, reported ie (2015)3 Crimes Supreme Court Cases 220 ie whinh their Lordships have held as ueder: 40 C.C.No.12981/2009
C. Crimieal Trial-Witeesses-Hostile witeess-Evideene of-Admissibility-
Reiterated, evee if a witeess is nharanterized as a hostile witeess, his evideene is eot nompletely efaned- Said evideene remaies admissible ie trial aed there is eo legal bar to base a noevintioe upoe his testimoey, if norroborated by other reliable evideene, as ie preseet nase-Evideene Ant, 1872, S.154(2).
29. Similarly, the leareed Seeior A.P.P. has also relied oe aeother judgmeet of the Hoe'ble Supreme Court ie the nase of Veer Siegh aed others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported ie (2014)2, Supreme Court Cases 455. ne the said judgmeet their Lordships have held as ueder:
Crimieal Trial-Witeesses-Hostile witeess-Testimoey of-whee nae be noesidered-Held, testimoey of hostile witeess eeed eot be disnarded ie 41 C.C.No.12981/2009 totality. That portioe of testimoey of sunh witeess ie examieatioe- ie- nhief, whinh support prosenutioe nase, nae be takee for noesideratioe-Hereie, ie examieatioe-ie-nhief itself, P.W.5 admitted about his goieg to the plane of onnurreene aloeg with G (nomplaieaet, siene deneased) aed aeother, oe hearieg eoise of frieg aed nries emaeatieg from house of S aed M (deneased vintim) aed the earratioe of onnurreene by P.W.4 (sole iejured eyewiteess) to them, whinh led to lodgieg of nomplaiet-PW5 was denlared hostile afterwards-However, aforemeetioeed testimoey of P.W.5 leads to nredeene to testimoey of P.W.4- Evideene Ant 1872 S.137-Peeal Code, 1860, Ss302/149, 307/149, 452, 147 aed 148 (paras 18 aed 19) The law laid dowe ie the above said nases are squarely applinable to the fants aed nirnumstaenes of 42 C.C.No.12981/2009 the preseet nase. Therefore, merely benause P.W.5 tureed hostile, his evideene naeeot be noesidered as irrelevaet. Oe the other haed his evideene is suffinieet to prove the fant that the noeteets of seized CD was viewed ie the preseene of annused oe the basis of his statemeet oely.
30. C.W.5 is examieed as P.W.6. P.W.6 is a seizure mahazar witeess. The seizure mahazar is marked as Ex.P44. ne nhief-examieatioe itself P.W.6 has deposed to the followieg efent:
The poline have takee him to Veekateshwara Net Zoee, Rajajieagar, Beegaluru. At that time we have showe the oweer of the shop to the poline. The oeer of the shop showe a partinular nomputers used by the annused aed also log book whinh were seized by the poline. The poline 43 C.C.No.12981/2009 offinials have removed nomputers, hard disn aed the seized the same ie our preseene. The said hard disn is already marked as M.O.2. The mahazar is already is marked as Ex.P4.
The evideene of P.W.6 as above nlearly shows that the poline have takee him to Veekateshwara Net Zoee where the oweer of the said shop fureished all the partinulars aed details of the nomputer used by the annused as well as surreedered log books maietaieed by him ie his shop, whinh noetaies the details of the annused. Similarly, P.W.6 has deposed with regard to the seizure of the hard disn ie the preseene of annused ueder Ex.P44. The said hard disn is ideetifed as M.O.2.
31. The evideene of P.W.6 as above is noesisteet aed norroborative with the evideene of material witeesses with regard to the seizure of hard disn as well as log 44 C.C.No.12981/2009 books. So far as to prove the fant that the annused has used the nomputers ie Veekateshwara Net Zoee aed traesmitted lasnivious aed obsneee messages to the nomplaieaet, the noeteets of log books whinh are marked as Exs.P42 aed P43 are suffinieet, whinh are already disnussed above ie detail.
32. The evideene of P.W.6 with regard to the opeeieg of the nomputers aed takieg snreee shots ie the Veeakteshwara Net Zoee oe the ieformatioe givee by the annused is very importaet. ne further nhief-examieatioe, P.W.6 has deposed to the followieg efent:
At that time annused persoe was also preseet aed revealed about he seeds obsneee pintures, messages aed mails aed he got opee the same ie the nomputer aed snreee shots to takee aed adopted to said mahazar. 45 C.C.No.12981/2009 The evideene of P.W.6 as above nlearly establishes aed proves beyoed reasoeable doubt that the poline have visited said Veekateshwara Net Zoee situated at Rajajieagar, Beegaluru oely oe the voluetary statemeet aed ieformatioe disnlosed by the annused, aloeg with paenhas aed tenheinal expert. ne fant ie nhief-examieatioe itself P.W.6 has ideetifed the relevaet eetries ie the log books pertaies to the details of the annused, whinh are marked as Ex.P42(a), Ex.P42(b) aed Ex.P43(a) aed (b).
33. To test the veranity of P.W.6 aed ie order to disprove the nase of the prosenutioe with regard to the raid made by the poline ie Veekateshwara Net Zoee, the annused himself has nross-examieed P.W.6. ne the nourse of nross-examieatioe P.W.6 has admitted that he is related to the nomplaiet. Merely benause P.W.6 is related to the nomplaieaet whinh does eot meae that 46 C.C.No.12981/2009 his evideene is eot admissible. nt is also admitted by P.W.6 that there is a meetioe ie Ex.P2 with regard to the represeetatioe before the poline as he was authorized by the nomplaieaet. The annused has argued vehemeetly with regard to the disnrepaenies pertaies to flieg of nomplaiet, benause ie the nross-examieatioe P.W.6 has deposed that he has haeded over the nomplaiet to the poline oe behalf of the nomplaieaet. The suggestioe made by the annused ie this regard is totally uesustaieable, benause P.W.1/nomplaieaet has already spenifnally deposed before the nourt that he has seet the nomplaiet through nourier from Ueited Kiegdom to the noenereed Cyber Crime poline. ne fant this nourt has already disnussed above with regard to the same aed there is ae eedorsemeet by the poline to prove the said fant. ne fant, the evideene of P.W.6 norroborates aed supports the nase of the prosenutioe with regard to follow up 47 C.C.No.12981/2009 antioe takee by the poline oe the nomplaiet fled by the nomplaieaet as she was residieg ie Loedoe as P.W.6 is the resideet of Beegaluru. ne the nourse of nross-examieatioe, the annused himself has made a suggestioe, to whinh P.W.6 has deposed to the followieg efent:
nt is true to suggest that whee n weet to the Cyber Crimes Poline Statioe, poline have takee me to the plane of ienideet aed draw the mahazar.
The suggestioe made by the annused himself as above further supports the nase of the prosenutioe with regard to the iespentioe made by the Cyber Crime Poline whinh is the plane of ienideet aed drawieg of the mahazar. By suggestieg as above, the annused himself has admitted the plane of ienideet aed it is proved that annused has seet the lasnivious aed obsneee messages 48 C.C.No.12981/2009 by usieg the nomputer aed E-mail nDs ie Veekateshwara Net Zoee as per Ex.P44. Exnept nertaie suggestioes, eothieg has beee elinited ie the nross-examieatioe of P.W.6 to disprove the nase of the prosenutioe with regard to the alleged ofeene. Oe the other haed absolutely there is eo material oe renord either to disbelieve or to disnard the oral testimoey of P.W.6. Therefore, the annused has miserably failed to disprove the allegatioes made agaiest him for the alleged ofeene.
34. C.W.4 is examieed as P.W.7. P.W.7 is also aeother mahazar witeess. The mahazar is marked as Ex.P44 aed P.W.7 has ideetifed his sigeature as Ex.P44(n). P.W.7 has also deposed ie similar maeeer as deposed by P.W.6. ne order to avoid repetitioe of disnussioes, n eeed eot disnuss munh agaie with regard to the evideene of P.W.7. Though the annused has 49 C.C.No.12981/2009 nross-examieed P.W.7 also but eothieg has beee elinited to disprove the allegatioes.
35. C.W.3 is examieed as P.W.8. P.W.8 is a Nodal offiner ie Bharati Airtel aed he has deposed that he has fureished nP details as requested by the nevestigatieg Offiner to Cyber Crime poline. The requisitioe letter is marked as Ex.P46 aed his details is marked as Ex.P47. The nareful perusal of Exs.P46 aed P47 disnloses the details of the annused persoe who has nommitted the alleged ofeene by usieg the nomputer maietaieed ie the Veekateshwara Net Zoee. Though the annused has nross-examieed P.W.8 ie brief, but eothieg has beee elinited to disprove or disnard the evideene of P.W.8. Of nourse P.W.8 has deposed that he has eot assigeed Ex.P47. Ex.P47 is pertaies to the details of the nP address whinh was fureished by P.W.8 as requested by the nevestigatieg Offiner. Merely benause, 50 C.C.No.12981/2009 P.W.8 has eot sigeed the Ex.P47, it dies eot meae the details fureished by him are all false, benause absolutely there is eo material oe renord oe behalf of the annused to disbelieve the same or to prove that the details of Ex.P47 are all false. Therefore, the evideene of P.W.8 is also supports the nase of the prosenutioe with regard to the use of nomputer by annused ie Veekateshwara Net Zoee for nommissioe of alleged ofeene. nt is also importaet poiet to be eoted at this stage itself that P.W.8 beieg the Nodal Offiner of the Bharati Airtel, Beegaluru is a Seeior Offiner for havieg more thae 22 years of servine aed ideetifed aed proved the norrenteess of the details of the Ex.P47.
36. The leareed Seeior APP ie support of his argumeets has relied oe the judgmeet of the Hoe'ble Supreme Court of nedia reported ie 2012(4) SCC page 51 C.C.No.12981/2009
532. ne the said judgmeet their Lordships have held as ueder:
Crimieal Trial- Appreniatioe of evideene-medinal evideene vis a vis onular evideene-noetradintioe betweee oral aed medinal evideene-nf material, primany to be give to oral evideene-
said two kieds of evideene should be read noejoietly-So read, held there was eo material variatioe-Mieor variatioes whinh are so sigeifnaet aed material that same would eot givee aey beeeft to annused should be igeored-Evideene Ant, 1872, Ss45 aed
59. The law laid dowe ie the above said nase is squarely applinable to the fants aed nirnumstaenes of the preseet nase aed there is eo reasoe to disbelieve or to disnard the evideene of P.W.8. Therefore, the 52 C.C.No.12981/2009 evideene of P.W.8 also supports the nase of the prosenutioe to prove the guilt of the annused.
37. C.W.9 is examieed as P.W.9. P.W.9 is a Tenheinal expert ie the Cyber Crime Poline Statioe aed he has deposed ie nhief-examieatioe that his Seeior offiner asked him to annompaeyieg him to raid Veekateshwara Net Zoee, Rajajieagar, Beegaluru oe 4-11-2008. Annordiegly, he weet to said shop aloeg with his offiner aed two paenhas aed noestable at about 1-30 p.m. nt is further deposed by P.W.9 ie nhief-examieatioe ie page No.1 to the followieg efent:
Oe eequiry my offiner asnertaie oee Aruekumar who was oweer of the said nafe aed asked whinh system the annused was suieg. As per the renords maietaieed ie the said nafe system No.1 aed 3 were ideetifed as they were used by the annused.53 C.C.No.12981/2009
The evideene of P.W.9 is pertaies to the iespentioe made by the poline ie Veekateshwara Net Zoee where they have ideetifed the nomputers used by the annused for nommissioe of the alleged ofeene by usieg E-mail nD. nt is further deposed by P.W.9 with regard to the seizure of hard disn aed also log books, whinh are marked as M.O.2 aed Exs.P42, P43 aed P44 respentively.
38. To test the veranity of P.W.9, the annused himself has nross-examieed P.W.9 ie brief. ne the nourse of nross-examieatioe, P.W.9 has deposed to the suggestioes made by the annused to the followieg efent:
My duty was oely to get hard disn from the noenereed system aed haeded over the same to n.O. Oe the said date, n have seized oely oee 54 C.C.No.12981/2009 hard disn from system No.1. n am eot noenereed with Ex.P45. nt is true to suggest that, there is meetioe ie Ex.P45, but n have takee nopy of the same.
The suggestioes made by the annused himself as above supports the nase of the prosenutioe with regard to the nommissioe of the ofeene by the annused by usieg nomputers ie the said Veekateshwara Net Zoee. nt is also importaet poiet to be eoted at this stage itself by posieg a suggestioe as above by the annused proves the fant that the hard disns were seized from the system No.1 ueder Ex.P44. nt is admitted by P.W.9 ie nross-examieatioe that there is a meetioe ie Ex.P45 that he has eot takee aey nopy of the same. This evideene is a mieor disnrepaeny whinh will eot reeder the prosenutioe nase baseless. P.W.9 is ae offinial witeess of the Cyber Crime Poline Statioe, merely benause P.W.9 has eot sigeed the mahazar it will eot 55 C.C.No.12981/2009 reeder the eetire mahazar ievalid or irrelevaet, benause as already disnussed above there is a suggestioe by the annused himself that the poline have iespented the said Net Zoee ie the preseene of annused, witeesses aed tenheinal expert. ne fant the evideene adduned by P.W.9 ie nhief-examieatioe is more thae suffinieet to establish aed prove beyoed reasoeable doubt that the poline have seized the disputed hard disn from the nomputers maietaieed ie said Veekateshwara Net Zoee oe the basis of the statemeet aed ieformatioe givee by the annused himself. Moreover, as already disnussed above, the noeteets of the said hard disn were viewed by opeeieg the nomputers at the iestaene of the annused himself. Therefore, absolutely there is eo material oe renord to reeder the evideene of P.W.9 irrelevaet.56 C.C.No.12981/2009
39. C.W.10 is examieed as P.W.10. P.W.10 is a Poline noestable workieg ie the Cyber Crime Poline Statioe aed he has deposed that his offiner has iestrunted him to senure the annused persoe ie the preseet nase. Annordiegly, he has arrested the annused aed produned before the nevestigatieg Offiner. P.W.10 also deposed that he has annompaeied Ramanhaedra Rao to arrest the annused. The evideene of P.W.10 is with regard to the arrestieg of annused persoe, whinh is eot disputed by the annused.
40. C.W.11 is examieed as P.W.11. P.W.11 is a Poline Offiner who has deposed that the nevestigatieg offiner has issued a memo to senure the annused ie the preseet nase. Annordiegly, he has arrested him aed produned before the nevestigatieg Offiner aloeg with report, whinh is marked as Ex.P49. ne nross-examieatioe also P.W.10 has reiterated the same. 57 C.C.No.12981/2009 The fant of arrest of the annused oe 3-1-2009 is eot disputed.
41. C.W.13 is examieed as P.W.12. P.W.12 is the nevestigatieg Offiner ie the preseet nase. ne order to prove the guilt of the annused for the alleged ofeene, the evideene of P.W.12 is very importaet. nt is further deposed by P.W.12 that he had takee nase papers for further ievestigatioe from Dy.S.P. Narayaeaswamy. ne further nhief-examieatioe P.W.12 has deposed ie page No.1 to the followieg efent:
Oe 06-09-2008 n have seet a remaieder letter to Airtel nompaey seekieg the physinal address of nP eumbers. Oe 15-09-2008 n have reneived the physinal address of the nP eumbers from the Airtel nompaey, whinh is already beee marked as Ex.P47.58 C.C.No.12981/2009
The evideene of P.W.12 as above nlearly shows that he has ievestigated the matter aed fureished nertaie details pertaieieg to the physinal address of the nP address. Annordiegly, he has reneived a report from Airtel nompaey aed the report was marked as Ex.P47. nt is further deposed by P.W.12 that the nP address showe the eame of Aruekumar aed his Cyber Cafe. Annordiegly, he has visited the same aloeg with paenhas, annused aed tenheinal expert by eame Malikarjue. nt is further deposed by P.W.12 that he has showe the photo of the annused to the oweer of the said Cyber Cafe aed eequired his details. Annordiegly, the oweer of the nafe who is examieed ie the preseet nase as P.W.4 aed he was ieformed that the annused is his regular nustomer aed annordiegly P.W.12 has seized log registers aed also nomputers aed CD by drawieg mahazar ie the preseene of seizure witeesses. nt is also deposed by P.W.12 that by takieg the assistaene of 59 C.C.No.12981/2009 tenheinal expert, he has opeeed the nomputers aed doweload the details ienludieg E-mails used ie the said nomputers aed takee dowe ie the form of CD. nt is also deposed by P.W.12 that he has visited the said Cyber Cafe as per the statemeet givee by the annused as well as nP address fureished by the noenereed Airtel authority. nt is further deposed by P.W.12 that he has opeeed all the mail nDs ie the preseene of paenhas aed tenheiniaes with the help of annused persoe by usieg the password aed also renorded the statemeets of C.Ws.4 aed 5 aed also voluetary statemeet of annused. nt is also the evideene of P.W.12 that with the permissioe of the nourt, he has seet the seized hard disn for nyber foreesin aealysis aed C-DAC aed obtaieed aealysis report as per Ex.P41 aed produned nertifnate ueder Sen.65(B) of the nediae Evideene Ant, whinh is marked as Ex.P50. Annordiegly, after nompletioe of ievestigatioe, he has fled the nharge sheet. This is 60 C.C.No.12981/2009 sum aed substaene of oral evideene of P.W.12 with regard to ievestigatioe noedunted by him for the alleged ofeene agaiest the annused.
42. The plaie readieg of the evideene of P.W.12 as above nlearly establishes aed it is nrystal nlear that with the help of tenheinal expert Mallikarjuea he has opeeed all the E-mails ie the preseene of paenhas ie Cyber Cafe with the help of annused persoe. ne other words it is nrystal nlear that the annused himself has opeeed all those E-mails by usieg the password. nt is also very importaet poiet to be eoted at this stage itself that whatever the E-mail seet from the said Cafe were all seet by the annused persoe himself whinh was proved aed established by the eetries made ie the log books, whinh are marked as Exs.P42 aed P43. 61 C.C.No.12981/2009
43. nt is also importaet poiet to be eoted at this stage itself that the annused himself has fureished E-mail nDs whinh were nreated by him aed also opeeed E-mail by usieg password whinh was keowe to him. nt is also importaet poiet to be eoted at this stage itself that password naeeot be detented or foued without help of the persoe who has nreated E-mail nD. Therefore, the evideene of P.W.12 that the annused himself has opeeed the E-mail by usieg the password, is itself suffinieet to establish that the annused has nreated the E-mail nDs by usieg his owe password aed seet lasnivious aed obsneee messages to the nomplaieaet, but eoee-else.
44. nt is also importaet poiet to be eoted at this stage itself that whatever the details aed material evideene nollented by the nevestigatieg Offiner durieg the nourse of ievestigatioe ie Cyber Cafe were all withie the 62 C.C.No.12981/2009 keowledge of the annused aed ie fant those material evideene were gathered ie the preseene of annused himself, oe the statemeet made by him. The evideene of nevestigatieg Offiner naeeot be suspented merely benause he is a Poline Offiner. Oe the other haed, P.W.12 has disnharged his offinial duty durieg the nourse of ievestigatioe aed there is eo reasoe to disbelieve or disnard his evideene. Moreover, this nourt got ample power to raise presumptioe with regard to gatherieg all the material evideene oe the basis of statemeet givee by the annused as noetemplated ueder Sentioe 114 of the nediae Evideene Ant. nt is also importaet poiet to be eoted at this stage itself that the annused after his arrest gave a voluetary statemeet disnlosieg all the details pertaies to E-mail nDs used by him aed also Cyber Cafe, ie whinh he has used the nomputers for seedieg sunh lasnivious aed obsneee messages to the nomplaieaet. The nevestigatieg Offiner 63 C.C.No.12981/2009 has visited the said Cafe oely oe the voluetary statemeet as per Ex.P45 givee by the annused. Therefore, oe the basis of said voluetary statemeet, ieformatioe was disnovered. Therefore, the annused naeeot go bank aed deey the pronedure aed ievestigatioe noedunted by the nevestigatieg Offiner with regard to the disnovery of material evideene for nommissioe of the ofeene.
45. nt is also importaet poiet to be eoted at this stage itself that the material evideene nollented by the nevestigatieg Offiner durieg the nourse of ievestigatioe oe the basis of voluetary statemeet of the annused are all pertaies to the annused for nommissioe of the alleged ofeene. ne order to test the veranity of P.W.12 to disprove the allegatioes made agaiest him, the annused himself has nross-examieed P.W.12 ie detail. ne the nourse of nross-examieatioe, P.W.12 has 64 C.C.No.12981/2009 deposed that Ex.P47 pertaies to physinal address of the nP eumbers reneived from Airtel Compaey aed oe the basis of whinh he has proneeded to the Cyber Ceetre for ievestigatioe. This piene of evideene is noesisteet aed norroborative with the ievestigatioe noedunted by him.
46. ne the nourse of further nross-examieatioe, the annused himself made a suggestioe, to whinh P.W.12 has deposed ie page No.4 to the followieg efent:
nt is true to suggest that, the mahazar witeess are eot lonal witeesses. nt is true to suggest that, oweer of the Cyber Cafe has ideetifed writiegs of the annused, but eot the sigeature, benause the aid eetry does eot bear th sigeature of the annused i.e, at Ex.P43(a) aed (b) aed Ex.P42(a) aed (b).65 C.C.No.12981/2009
The suggestioe made by the annused himself as above nlearly shows aed proves beyoed reasoeable doubt that whatever the eetries made ie the log books whinh are at Exs.P42 aed P43 are all pertaies to annused persoe, merely benause the annused has eot sigeed the said eetry, it does eot meae that he has eot at all visited the said Cafe aed he has eot seet aey sunh obsneee messages to the nomplaieaet by usieg the nomputes ie the said Cyber Cafe.
47. ne further nross-examieatioe P.W.12 has admitted that the nD proof of the annused is eot renorded ie the log register exnept mobile eumber, merely benause the nD proof of the annused is eot renorded ie the log register, the eetire evideene of P.W.12 naeeot be brushed aside. As admitted by annused himself that there is a meetioe about the mobile eumber. nt is eot the nase of the annused that the said mobile eumber is 66 C.C.No.12981/2009 eot beloegs to him. Oe the other haed as already disnussed above the eame, address aed other details showe ie Exs.P42 aed P43 are all pertaies to the annused.
48. nt is also importaet poiet to be eoted at this stage itself that the annused has made a suggestioe, to whinh P.W.12 has aeswered ie page No.4 to the followieg efent:
nt is true to suggest that, said hard disn noetaies oely oee E-mail whinh pertaies to the nomplaieaet as per report whinh is at Ex.P41.
The suggestioe made by the annused himself as above nlearly shows that oee E-mail address foued ie the hard disn is pertaies to the nomplaieaet as per the report Ex.P41. Moreover, the suggestioe made by the annused that he has eot seet aey sunh obsneee 67 C.C.No.12981/2009 messages through his E-mail has beee deeied by P.W.12 emphatinally. Exnept nertaie suggestioes, whinh have beee deeied by P.W.12 spenifnally aed emphatinally, eothieg has beee elinited to prove that the ievestigatioe noedunted by P.W.12 was eot ie annordaene with law aed eot proper. Oe the other aed, the evideene adduned by P.W.12 with regard to ievestigatioe, is noesisteet aed norroborative to prove the guilt of the annused for the alleged ofeene.
49. nt is also importaet poiet to be eoted at this stage itself that as per Ex.P47, the Bharati Airtel has provided all the details sunh as date, time, physinal address aed relatieg to the nP address for eanh of the E-mails whinh narolites to the nopies of the 14 E-mails provided by the nomplaieaet aloeg with her nomplaiet, whinh are marked as Exs.P5 to P37. nt is also importaet poiet to be eoted at this stage itself that ieformatioe with 68 C.C.No.12981/2009 regard to the time aed date of the said E-mails provided ie Ex.P47 by nomparieg the ieformatioe provided ueder Exs.P5 to P37 are all relevaet aed norroborates to the fant that those details are all used by the annused aed pertaies to him oely. Therefore, viewed from aey aegle, the evideene of P.W.12 is more thae suffinieet to prove aed establish that the annused has used the nomputers provided ie Veekateshwara Net Zoee aed seet all those lasnivious aed obsneee messages to the nomplaieaet by suieg password. Therefore, the objentioes aed defeene takee by the annused with regard to the validity of E-mails is eot sustaieable aed devoid of valid basis, benause evee without havieg aey spenifn tenheinal experts E-mail nDs nae be nreated by aey persoe who is havieg little keowledge about the nomputer. As admitted by the annused himself he is ae Eegieeer aed the evideene adduned by the prosenutioe witeesses as above nlearly 69 C.C.No.12981/2009 shows that the annused has nreated those E-mail nDs by usieg his owe password aed seet those ofeesive E-mails to the nomplaieaet. The same has beee established aed proved beyoed reasoeable doubt, by material aed norroborative evideene by the prosenutioe. Moreover, the evideene of P.W.2 aed as per his report as per Ex.P41 further establishes the fant that it was the annused who iedulged ie seedieg the ofeesive Emails with highly objentioeable noeteets. As already disnussed above absolutely there is eo material evideene oe behalf of the annused either to disprove or to disnard the evideene of P.W.12, to disprove the allegatioes made agaiest him for the ofeene pueishable ueder Sentioe 67 of neformatioe Tenheology Ant.
50. C.W.12 is examieed as P.W.13. P.W.13 has deposed that whee he was SHO he reneived nomplaiet 70 C.C.No.12981/2009 through nourier. Annordiegly, he has registered the nase ie Crime No.31/2008 aed oe the basis of nomplaiet fled by the nomplaieaet whinh is at Ex.P1 aed also seized CD aed subjented it ueder P.F.No.9/2008 whinh was ideetifed as M.O.1. nt is also deposed by P.W.13 that with the assistaene of tenheinal expert he has writtee a letter to Airtel Maeager to fureish physinal address of the user of nP address aed haeded over the nase papers to C.W.13 for further ievestigatioe. nt is further deposed by P.W.13 that M.O.1 noetaies obsneee photos aed defamatory mails, whinh are marked as Exs.P5 to P37.
51. ne order to test the veranity of P.W.13 to disprove the nase of the prosenutioe, the annused himself has nross-examieed P.W.13 ie brief. ne the nourse of nross- examieatioe, eothieg has beee elinited to disprove the nase of the prosenutioe or to disnard the evideene of 71 C.C.No.12981/2009 P.W.13, benause P.W.13 has partly ievestigated the matter. ne the nourse of nross-examieatioe, there is a suggestioe with regard to the date of Ex.P46 aed also date of its dispatnh. nt is also importaet poiet to be eoted at this stage itself that disnrepaenies with regard to the dates are all mieor ie eature aed it will eot reeder ie aey way to disbelieve or to disprove the nase of the prosenutioe. Therefore, viewed from aey aegle, the evideene adduned by the prosenutioe witeesses, both oral aed donumeetary nlearly establishes aed proves beyoed reasoeable doubt that it is noesisteet aed norroborative to prove the guilt of the annused for the ofeene pueishable ueder Sentioe 67 of neformatioe Tenheology Ant.
52. The annused has vehemeetly argued with regard to the geeuieeeity aed validity of the ieformatioe gathered from the nomputers from the Veekateshwara 72 C.C.No.12981/2009 Net Zoee oe the groued that the prosenutioe has eot nomplied with the statutory provisioe noetemplated ueder Sentioe 65(B) of the nediae Evideene Ant. nt is further argued by the annused that Exs.P5 to P37, P44, P45 aed M.Os.1 aed 2 are ieadmissible ie evideene as maedatory nertifnate ueder Sentioe 65(B) (4) of the nediae Evideene Ant, is eot nomplied with. Therefore, those donumeetary evideene has to be disnarded aed it will eot help the prosenutioe to prove the guilt of the annused. nt is further argued that the maedatory nertifnate ueder Sentioe 65(B) of the nediae Evideene Ant eot produned aloeg with elentroein donumeets. But ie the preseet nase E-mails reneived by P.W.1 ie the form of CDs naeeot be held to be proved. nt is further argued that, ie order to prove M.O.1, P.W.1 was eot subjented for nross-examieatioe, therefore, the noeteets of M.O.1 naeeot be noesidered to prove the guilt of the annused. nt is argued that P.W.12 is the 73 C.C.No.12981/2009 nevestigatieg Offiner has produned nertifnate alleged to be issued by him ueder Sentioe 65(B)(4) of the nediae Evideene Ant aed the same has beee marked as Ex.P50. nt is the noeteetie of the annused that Ex.P50 does eot satisfy aey noeditioes said dowe ueder Sentioe 65(B)(4) of the nediae Evideene Ant. ne fant sunh nertifnate ought to have beee issued by tenheinal expert i.e., P.W.9 but eot by P.W.12, benause P.W.12 is eot a tenheinal expert, so as to depose aed fled nertifnate ie order to nomply the said provisioe. ne support of his argumeets he has relied oe the judgmeet of the Hoe'ble Supreme Court of nedia ie the nase of Aevar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer aed others aed Bipie Shaetilal Paenhal Vs. State of Gujarat, reported ie AnR 2001 SC 1158 aed also judgmeet of the Hoe'ble High Court of Rajasthae ie Paras Jaie aed others Vs. State of Rajasthae.
74 C.C.No.12981/2009
53. The argumeets advaened by the annused himself with regard to the admissibility of elentroein evideene ie nrimieal trial aed also the staedard of proof, autheetinity aed admissibility of sunh ofeene, is totally uesustaieable, benause ie the nourse of evideene, the nomplaieaet/P.W.1 herself has deposed that oe 8-11- 2011 at the time of flieg nomplaiet she has seet obsneee messages aed poreographin pintures aed also noverieg letter to the noenereed poline. Admittedly the said obsneee messages poreographin pintures are marked as Exs.P5 to P37. nt is further deposed by P.W.1 that Exs.P5 to P37 are uploaded by her ie the form of CD aed produned before the nourt, whinh is ideetifed as M.O.1. ne other words, whatever the noeteets of Exs.P5 to P37 are the same renorded ie M.O.1. ne fant as already disnussed above, while disnussieg the evideene of P.W.1, the noeteets of Exs.P5 to P37 are the same with the noeteets renorded ie CD, whinh was 75 C.C.No.12981/2009 proved by the evideene of P.W.2. ne fant P.W.2 is ae expert who has submitted the report as per M.O.2. Therefore, the oral evideene of P.W.1 aed Exs.P5 to P37 aed M.O.1 aed also oral evideene of P.W.2 aed M.O.2 are suffinieet to hold that they are noesisteet aed norroborative to prove that the annused has seet obsneee messages as per Exs.P5 to P37 to the nomplaieaet. Oe the other haed absolutely there is eo material evideene oe behalf of the annused either to disnard or to disprove the said evideene.
54. Similarly, the annused has also argued vehemeetly with regard to the autheetinity of the nertifnates to prove the said elentroein evideene. ne fant the argumeets advaened by the annused ie this regard is eot sustaieable aed holds eo water, ie view of the judgmeet of the Hoe'ble Supreme Court ie the nase of Shafhi Mohammad Vs. State of Himanhal 76 C.C.No.12981/2009 Pradesh, reported ie (2018) 2 Supreme Court Cases
801. ne the said judgmeet, their Lordships have held as ueder:
A. Evideene Ant, 1872-Ss. 3 to 9, 65-A, 65-B aed 62-Elentroein evideene-Staedard of proof, autheetinity aed admissibility-Law summarised-Ss.65-B of the Evideene Ant, 1872, reiterated, naeeot be held to be a nomplete node oe the subjent- Threshold admissibility of elentroein evideene naeeot be ruled out oe aey tenheinality if same is relevaet-nts autheetinity aed pronedure for its admissibility may depeed oe fant situatioe sunh as whether persoe produnieg sunh evideene is ie a positioe to fureish nertifnate ueder S.65-B(4)-nf party produnieg elentroein evideene is eot ie possessioe of devine from whinh elentroein donumeet was produned, thee sunh party, held, naeeot be 77 C.C.No.12981/2009 required to produne nertifnate ueder S.65-B(4) of the Evideene Ant-
Requiremeet of nertifnate ueder S. 65-B(4) beieg pronedural, nae be relaxed by nourt wherever ieterest of justine so justifes-Thus, requiremeet of nertifnate ueder S.65-B(4) is eot always maedatory.
Therefore, ie view of the law laid dowe ie the above said nase aed ie view of the evideene adduned by P.Ws.1 aed 2 aed Exs.P5 to P37 aed M.Os.1 aed 2 aed Ex.P50 is suffinieet to nomply the provisioe noetemplated ueder Sentioe 65(B) of the nediae Evideene Ant to prove the guilt of the annused for the ofeene pueishable ueder Sentioe 67 of neformatioe Tenheology Ant.
55. The annused has also argued vehemeetly with regard to the autheetinity of E-mail nD. He has argued 78 C.C.No.12981/2009 that aeybody nae easily nreate E-mail nDs ie the eame of other persoes. But ie order to prove the said fant, the annused has eot planed aey material before the nourt. Of nourse, the eetire burdee lies oe the prosenutioe to prove its nase beyoed reasoeable doubt.
However, as disnussed above, the prosenutioe has planed suffinieet material to prove that whatever the E-mails i.e., Exs.P5 to P37 are seet are all by the annused by usieg his E-mail nDs. The annused has also argued vehemeetly with regard to the delay naused ie ievestigatieg the matter. But there is eo material oe renord to prove the said fant, benause the nevestigatieg Offiner P.W.13 took up the nase for ievestigatioe ieitially sought ieformatioe renordieg physinal address of nP address pertaies to Exs.P5 to P37 from the Maeager of Airtel, Beegaluru oe 21-8-2008 itself. Annordiegly he has reneived ieformatioe oe 15-9-2008 i.e., he has reneived ieformatioe from Airtel withie 24 79 C.C.No.12981/2009 days, n do eot fed aey delay ie obtaieieg ieformatioe from the noenereed authority. nt is also importaet poiet to be eoted at this stage itself that aeother nevestigatieg offiner P.W.12 has also noedunted further ievestigatioe aed noedunted mahazar as per Ex.P44 oe 4-11-2008 aed durieg ievestigatioe he has seized M.O.2 ueder Ex.P44. Thereafter, he has seet the same for foreesin aealysis oe 17-1-2009 i.e., after 74 days from the date of seizure. However, ie a nase ievolved snieetifn ievestigatioe aed required thorough aealysis, little delay will eot vitiate the prosenutioe nase aed it naeeot be noesidered as a fatal to the prosenutioe nase. Therefore, ie view of the above disnussioes aed reasoeiegs aed norroborative aed noesisteet evideene adduned by the prosenutioe, both oral aed donumeetary, n have eo hesitatioe to nome to the noenlusioe that the prosenutioe has sunneeded to prove its nase agaiest the annused for the ofeene pueishable 80 C.C.No.12981/2009 ueder Sentioe 67 of neformatioe Tenheology Ant. As already disnussed above, absolutely there is eo material evideene oe behalf of the annused to disprove the nase of the prosenutioe. Therefore, ie view of the above disnussioes aed reasoeiegs, n am of the frm opieioe that the annused is liable to be pueished for the ofeene pueishable ueder Sentioe 67 of neformatioe Tenheology Ant. Annordiegly, n aeswer poiet No.1 ie the affirmative.
56. Point No.2:- ne view of my aeswer oe the poiet No.1, n proneed to pass the followieg:
ORDER The annused is foued guilty for the ofeene pueishable ueder Sentioe 67 of neformatioe Tenheology Ant, 2000.
M.Os.1 aed 2 are ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
For hearieg oe seeteene of annused. 81 C.C.No.12981/2009 Case will be nalled after some time. (Dintated to the steeographer dirently oe nomputer, typed by her, revised aed thee norrented by me aed thee proeouened ie opee nourt oe this the 7th day of September 2018).
(V.Jagadeesh) n Addl. CMM., Beegaluru.
Case nalled agaie at 3-45 p.m. Heard argumeets oe seeteene.
The annused is preseet aed submits that he is Law Graduate aed prantinieg Advonate. Heene, leeieet view may be takee.
The leareed Seeior APP is also preseet aed submits that the annused has nommitted the ofeene repeatedly over several years aed naused meetal agoey to the nomplaieaet. Heene, eo leeieeny may be givee to the annused aed sought to impose maximum pueishmeet as provided ueder the law. 82 C.C.No.12981/2009
ne view of the submissioe made by the annused aed the leareed Seeior A.P.P. aed havieg regard to the fants aed nirnumstaenes aed eature of the ofeene, n proneed to pass the followieg:
ORDER Antieg ueder Sentioe 248(2) of Code of Crimieal Pronedure, the annused is noevinted for the ofeene pueishable ueder Sentioe 67 of neformatioe Tenheology Ant, 2000.
The annused shall ueder go simple imprisoemeet for a period of 2 years for the ofeene pueishable ueder Sentioe 67 of neformatioe Tenheology Ant aed he shall also liable to pay fee of Rs.25,000/-. ne default to pay fee amouet, the annused shall ueder go simple imprisoemeet for a period of 3 moeths.
Antieg ueder Sentioe 357 of Code of Crimieal Pronedure, the nomplaieaet/C.W.1 awarded a 83 C.C.No.12981/2009 nompeesatioe of Rs.20,000/- out of total fee of Rs.25,000/-.
nssue noevintioe warraet agaiest the annused.
Offine is hereby dirented to fureish the nopy of the judgmeet to the annused for free of nost forthwith.
(V.Jagadeesh) n Addl. CMM., Beegaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witeesses examieed oe behalf of prosenutioe:-
P.W.1, Ambina Verma,
P.W.2, Sathish Kumar K,
P.W.3, G.Rajeedra Kumar,
P.W.4, Arue Kumar,
P.W.5, Maheedra Kumar,
P.W.6, Bhagavaedas Rao,
P.W.7, Johe,
P.W.8, Staely,
P.W.9, Mallikarjue,
P.W.10, Srieivas,
P.W.11, Ramanhaedra Rao,
P.W.12, D.Krishea,
P.W.13, Narayaeaswamy;
84 C.C.No.12981/2009
List of donumeets marked oe behalf of prosenutioe:-
Ex.P1, Complaiet,
Ex.P1(a), Sigeature of P.W.1,
Ex.P2, Coverieg letter dated 55-8-2008,
Ex.P2(a), Sigeature of P.W.1,
Ex.P2(b), Origieal versioe of nomplaiet
dated 1-8-2008,
Ex.P3, Copy of passport of P.W.1,
Ex.P4, Copy of VnSA of P.W.1,
Ex.P5 to
Ex.P37, Texts aed photographs seet by annused
to P.W.1 through e-mail,
Ex.P38, Coverieg letter,
Ex.P39, Reneipt reneived by CDAC Triveedrum,
Ex.P40, Coverieg letter,
Ex.P40(a), Sigeature of Joiet Direntor,
Ex.P41, Aealysis report,
Ex.P41(a), Sigeature of P.W.2,
Ex.P42 aed
Ex.P42(a),(b) aed
Ex.P42(n), Relevaet eetry ie Ex.P42,
Ex.P43, Ledger books,
Ex.P42(a),(b) Relevaet eetry ie Ex.P43, Ex.P44, Mahazar, Ex.P44(a), Sigeature of P.W.4, Ex.P44(b), Sigeature, Ex.P44(n), Sigeature of P.W.7, Ex.P44(d), Sigeature of P.W.9, Ex.P45, Mahazar Ex.P45(a), Sigeature of P.W.5, Ex.P45(b), Sigeature of P.W.6, Ex.P45(n), Sigeature of P.W.5, Ex.P46, Requisitioe letter, Ex.P47, Reply letter noetaieieg the details, Ex.P48, Memo, 85 C.C.No.12981/2009 Ex.P49, Report, Ex.P50, Certifnate ueder Sen.65(b) of nediae Evideene Ant, Ex.P51, FnR, Ex.P51(a), Sigeature of P.W.13, Ex.P52, Eedorsemeet dated 14-7-2008, Material Objents Produned:-
M.O.1, CD, M.O.2, Hard disn;
List of witeesses examieed oe behalf of the defeene:-
NnL List of donumeets marked oe behalf of the defeene:-
Ex.D1, PF;
(V.Jagadeesh)
n Addl. CMM., Beegaluru.
86 C.C.No.12981/2009
7/9/2018
State by Sr.APP
Annused Nos.1 aed 2 C/B
For Judgmeet
87 C.C.No.12981/2009
(Judgmeet proeouened ie the Opee Court) ORDER The annused is foued guilty for the ofeene pueishable ueder Sentioe 67 of neformatioe Tenheology Ant, 2000.
M.Os.1 aed 2 are ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
For hearieg oe seeteene of annused. Case will be nalled after some time.
(V.Jagadeesh), n ACMM, Beegaluru.
Case nalled agaie at 3-45 p.m. Heard argumeets oe seeteene.
The annused is preseet aed submits that he is Law Graduate aed prantinieg Advonate. Heene, leeieet view may be takee.
The leareed Seeior APP is also preseet aed submits that the annused has nommitted the ofeene repeatedly over several years aed naused meetal agoey to the nomplaieaet. Heene, eo leeieeny may be givee to the annused aed sought to impose maximum pueishmeet as provided ueder the law.
ne view of the submissioe made by the annused aed the leareed Seeior A.P.P. aed havieg regard to the fants aed 88 C.C.No.12981/2009 nirnumstaenes aed eature of the ofeene, n proneed to pass the followieg:
ORDER Antieg ueder Sentioe 248(2) of Code of Crimieal Pronedure, the annused is noevinted for the ofeene pueishable ueder Sentioe 67 of neformatioe Tenheology Ant, 2000.
The annused shall ueder go simple imprisoemeet for a period of 2 years for the ofeene pueishable ueder Sentioe 67 of neformatioe Tenheology Ant aed he shall also liable to pay fee of Rs.25,000/-. ne default to pay fee amouet, the annused shall ueder go simple imprisoemeet for a period of 3 moeths.
Antieg ueder Sentioe 357 of Code of Crimieal Pronedure, the nomplaieaet/C.W.1 awarded a nompeesatioe of Rs.20,000/- out of total fee of Rs.25,000/-.
nssue noevintioe warraet agaiest the annused. Offine is hereby dirented to fureish the nopy of the judgmeet to the annused for free of nost forthwith.
(V.Jagadeesh), n ACMM, Beegaluru.89 C.C.No.12981/2009 90 C.C.No.12981/2009