Delhi District Court
State vs Ravi Arora on 10 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SEEMA NIRMAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -09,
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT / SAKET COURTS, DELHI
DLSE020011902014
Cr. CASES 87580/2016
STATE Vs Ravi Arora
FIR NO.187 /2013
PS (Greater Kailash)
JUDGMENT
A C.N.R No. DLSE02-001190-2014
B Name of the Damini Sinha D/o R.N. Sinha
Complainant R/o C-55 Kailash Apartments PS
GK-I,New Delhi
C Name of the accused Ravi Arora S/o B.C. Arora
& his parentage and R/o H.No. 10/18/4 opposite
address cooperative bank, Banbata Ganj,
Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh.
D Offence charged 509 IPC
E Date of commission of 20.07.2013
offence
F Date of Institution 03.04.2014
G Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
H Order Reserved on 10.06.2025 (Forenoon)
I
Date of 10.06.2025 (Afternoon)
Pronouncement
G Final Order Acquitted
Present: Mr. Jayadithya, Ld. APP for the state.
Accused Ravi Arora in person represented by P.S. Chauhan, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
FIR No. 187/2013 State Vs. Ravi Arora Page 1 /16 PS Greater Kailash BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 20.07.2013 to 01.08.2013, at unknown time, at C-55, Kailash Apartment, Lala Lajpat Rai Marg, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS GK-1, accused sent indecent messages to the complainant Damini Sinha D/o R.N Sinha through his mobile phone with an intention to insult the modesty of the complainant, and thereby accused committed offence punishable u/s 509 IPC.
2. This case was registered on the written statement of complainant Ms. Damini Sinha who stated that she had been receiving unsolicited and vulgar SMS's on her mobile 9810036447 from the following two mobile +918802446877 and 919716313382 since 20 July 2013 till 1 August 2013. She further stated that she did not know who these people are and they have access to her name, number and address. She is a single woman living with her aged parents who do not keep well. She fears for her safety and privacy. She also attached copies of the messages received from the two mobile mentioned above and requested police to take action on the above at the earliest so that her harassment could be stopped.
FIR No. 187/2013 State Vs. Ravi Arora Page 2 /16 PS Greater Kailash
3. So, on the basis of complaint of complainant Ms. Damini Sinha, the present case vide FIR No. 187/13 u/s 509 IPC was registered and investigation was taken up by IO/SI Sanjay Bhatt. During investigation, CDR of mobile numbers 8802446877 & 9716313382 were obtained and the mobile numbers were found in the name of Rohit Bathnotra R/o B-238 IInd Floor Rama Park Uttam Nagar New Delhi. Thereafter, the address H.N. 238 Rama Park Uttam Nagar New Delhi was searched but the property was found vacant and in dilapidated condition. On enquiry from the neighborhood, nothing fruitful could be derived. On getting Consumer Application Form, it was revealed that the Voter ID card contains the address of Village Raina Post Dhariwal Distt Gurdas Pur Punjab. During further course of investigation, Mr. Rahul Bathnotra S/o Vijay Kumar R/o Village Raina Post Dhariwal Distt Gurdas Pur Punjab was examined in the case who stated that he has not taken any mobile phone connection in Delhi. Further, Consumer Application Form of Mobile No 9716313382 and 8802446877 were shown to him but Mr. Rahul stated that someone had misused his Voter ID Card and the CAFs do not bear his photo, handwriting and signatures. He produced the copy of Aadhar Card and Passport which were taken on record. The statement FIR No. 187/2013 State Vs. Ravi Arora Page 3 /16 PS Greater Kailash of the Rahul was also recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and section 419/465/471 were invoked in the case. Thereafter, on analyzing the CDR of mobile nos 8802446877 & 9716313382, it was revealed that the IMEI No 911309054764750, 911309054764760, and 355376043794747 were used in the phone. The IMEI Nos. were kept under observation and report received where in it was revealed that IMEI NO 911309054764750 was used on mobile no 9810535030 on 05/08/13 from 6 pm to 8:41 pm. The subscriber Shri Ombir Singh S/o Uday Singh R/o Vill+ PO Khaira PS Najafgarh New Delhi was called who stated that he has done BHMS from Dr. B.R. Sur Homeopathy College Moti Bagh Delhi and he was a trainee in Kamal Malik's Tanisha Homeopathy Clinic. One Ravi Arora S/o B.C. Arora R/o Banbata Ganj Mooradabad was also a trainee there. On 05/08/13, battery of his mobile was down so he requested to Ravi Arora to give his phone and he inserted his SIM Card and used the same for some hours. He also informed the mobile numbers of Ravi Arora as 08439141424, 7503450354. Thereafter, the CDRs of mobile numbers 08439141424, 7503450354 were obtained and analyzed which revealed that the IMEI No 355376043794740 was used on mobile no 08439141424 and same IMEI was also used on 8802446877 from FIR No. 187/2013 State Vs. Ravi Arora Page 4 /16 PS Greater Kailash 02/07/13 to 10/07/13. The mobile no 08439141424 is found to be registered in the name of Mrs. Sudesh Arora R/o Banbata Ganj Mooradabad who is the mother of accused Ravi Arora. During further course of investigation, accused Ravi Arora was arrested in the case and he disclosed that he had committed the mistake and he bought two Sim Cards of Aircel from Mohan Garder Uttam Nagar when he was working in the clinic of Kamal Malik. He used to send the vulgar messages to the girls in order to have fun and he gets the number of girls from the internet. He further disclosed that in the month of August, when some girls had threatened him for making complaint, then he had thrown the SIM Cards in Uttam Nagar. He also produced two mobile phones (1) Nokia E-63 IMEI No 355376043794747 (2) Micromax Dual Sim IMEI No 911309054764751, 911309054764769 Colour Black and White which are used in texting the messages. The aforesaid SIM cards were kept in white clothes and sealed with the seal of SB and seized for the purpose of evidence by the IO. The CDR of mobile no. 9810036447 had been obtained and placed on file which is in the name of complainant Mrs. Damini Sinha. During further investigation, specimen and admitted handwritings of accused Ravi Arora and witness Rohit Bathnotra and Original CAFs were obtained. FIR No. 187/2013 State Vs. Ravi Arora Page 5 /16 PS Greater Kailash The specimen and admitted handwritings and CAFs sent to FSL Rohini During further course of investigation, section 66A IT Act was also invoked and after completion of investigation, final report in the form of charge sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence under Sections 509/419/465/471 IPC was forwarded to the Court against accused Ravi Arora. During proceedings in court supplementary chargesheet/FSL report qua handwriting/signatures of accused was also filed which was inconclusive.
4. After taking cognizance of the offence by the court, accused Ravi Arora was summoned. Pursuant to his appearance, in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., copy of chargesheet was supplied to him and a prima facie case against accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 509 IPC was found to be made out. Accordingly, on 22.05.2018, formal charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 509 IPC was framed against accused Ravi Arora, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Thereafter, the matter was posted for Prosecution Evidence.
The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused, FIR No. 187/2013 State Vs. Ravi Arora Page 6 /16 PS Greater Kailash examined the following witnesses; viz.
i) PW-1 Ms. Damini Sinha (complainant),
ii) PW-2 Sh. Vijay Kumar (public witness),
iii) PW-3 Sh. Omvir Singh (public witness),
iv) PW-4 Sh. Ajay Kumar (Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel
Ltd.),
v) PW5 Sh. Tej Singh (public witness),
vi) PW6 Sh. Ajay Kumar (Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd.),
vii) PW7 SI Dharampal (police witness),
viii) PW8 HC Sandeep Kumar (police witness),
ix) PW9 SI Rajender (police witness),
x) PW10 Inspector Sandeep Ghai (police witness),
xi) PW11 Inspector Sanjay Bhatt (IO),
6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, also relied upon the following documents:
1) complaint of complainant as Ex. PW1/A,
2) self-attested copies of prints of messages as Ex. PW1/B (running into 08 pages),
3) seizure memo of documents i.e. few copies of the original handwriting of Rohit, one photo, photocopy of election ID and school certificate as Ex. PW2/A,
4) 02 pages of handwriting, one front page of dairy, three other pages of dairy, photocopy of election ID and school certificate, one reply by Mr Rohit in his own handwriting FIR No. 187/2013 State Vs. Ravi Arora Page 7 /16 PS Greater Kailash and photo of Rohit affixed on the judicial file as Ex P-1 (colly) (running into 10 pages)
5) certified copy of CDR, certificate u/s 65-B, CAF and Election ID Card pertaining to mobile number 9810535030, as Ex PW4/A,
6) certificate u/s 65-B, subscriber detail, CDR pertaining to mobile number 9810036447 as Ex PW4/B,
7) copy of the CAF and call details of the said mobile number are Ex PW6/A & Ex PW6/B & the certificate u/s 65-B of IEA of the aforesaid document is Ex PW6/C,
8) arrest memo of accused as ExPW11/A,
9) seizure memo of mobile phone of accused as Ex. PW11/B,
10) disclosure statement of accused as Ex. PW11/C,
11) notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C as Ex. PW11/D & Ex. PW11/E respectively,
12) mobile phone make Nokia and Micromax as Ex. p-1 & Ex. P-2 respectively,
7. In addition to the above mentioned witnesses, the accused also admitted attested CDR of mobile no. 8802446877, CDR of mobile no. 9716313382 and CAF of mobile no. 8802446877 & 9716313382 which are in the name of Rohit Bathnotra from pages 145 to 395 as Ex A1 (colly) and corresponding endorsement on rukka as Ex. A-2 in terms of Section 294 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 16.07.2019 FIR No. 187/2013 State Vs. Ravi Arora Page 8 /16 PS Greater Kailash and 27.06.2024 hence, the said witnesses were dropped on the submissions of Ld. APP for State.
8. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Ravi Arora was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating circumstances led against him during the trial by the prosecution witnesses were put to him, affording him an opportunity to give his explanation, if any. Accused pleaded innocence and claimed that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and opted not to lead defence evidence, and therefore, DE was closed. Thereafter, the matter was posted for final arguments.
9. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. counsel for the accused and gone through the case file carefully and minutely. After hearing rival contentions and after appreciation of evidence on file, I am of the considered view that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and the arguments advanced by the ld. APP for the state cannot be accepted for the reasons given below.
FIR No. 187/2013 State Vs. Ravi Arora Page 9 /16 PS Greater Kailash
10. In order to ascertain the veracity of the contentions made by the parties herein it is imperative to firstly examine whether the relevant ingredients of the offence which the accused herein had been charged with are made out.
"509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman;
Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine."
11. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the test for outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 509 of the IPC in Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, 1969 AIR 309, 1995 SCC (6) 194, observed as under:
"15. In State of Punjab vs. Major Singh (AIR 1967 SC 63) a question arose whether a female child of seven and a half months could be said to be possessed of 'modesty' which could FIR No. 187/2013 State Vs. Ravi Arora Page 10 /16 PS Greater Kailash be outraged. In answering the above question Mudholkar J., who along with Bachawat J. spoke for the majority, held that when any act done to or in the presence of a woman is clearly suggestive of sex according to the common notions of mankind that must fall within the mischief of Section 354 IPC. Needless to say, the `common notions of mankind' referred to by the learned Judge have to be gauged by contemporary societal standards. The other learned Judge (Bachawat J.) observed that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex and from her very birth she possesses the modesty which is the attribute of her sex. From the above dictionary meaning of 'modesty' and the interpretation given to that word by this Court in Major Singh's case (supra) it appears to us that the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is, is the action of the offender such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman..."
(emphasis supplied)
12. Section 509 provides to insult to the modesty of women or uttering any word or making any sound or gesture or exhibiting any object with an intention that such word or sound shall be heard, or FIR No. 187/2013 State Vs. Ravi Arora Page 11 /16 PS Greater Kailash that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman or intrusion upon the privacy of such woman. The word 'modesty' has not been defined anywhere in the Indian Penal Code. What the legislature had in mind when it used the word modesty in section 509 IPC was protection of an attribute which is peculiar to woman, as a virtue which attaches to a female on account of her sex and she possesses it irrespective of her age. No particular yardstick of universal application can be made for measuring the amplitude of modesty of woman, as may vary from country to country or society to society. Mere insult will not attract Section 509 IPC. For a prosecution under Section 509 IPC, there must be a definite allegation of insult to the modesty of woman or intrusion into the privacy of woman. Thus, the allegation must involve modesty of woman or privacy of woman. Mere insult or false allegation will not attract a prosecution under Section 509 IPC.
13. Now coming back to the facts of the case, there is no definite allegation of such insult to the modesty of the complainant or intrusion her privacy. Merely deposing in examination in chief that vulgar messages were sent to the complainant it cannot be said FIR No. 187/2013 State Vs. Ravi Arora Page 12 /16 PS Greater Kailash ingredients under 509 IPC are fulfilled. Complainant had failed to depose in court as to what messages were sent to her and in what way such messages were vulgar which insulted her modesty. Though reliance has placed by complainant on print-outs of the WhatsApp chats which were allegedly taken from her mobile phone Ex. PW1/A, however the same are not supported by certificate under section 65B of Indian evidence Act and reliance cannot be placed on the same in absence of certificate under section 65B of Indian evidence Act being secondary evidence of electronic record and primary evidence i.e. original mobile phone of complainant is never produced in court.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. versus, P.K. Basheer and Others (2014) 10 SCC 473 has held that the Computer Output is not admissible without compliance of 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
15. A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 3 SCC 216 recently held that the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a condition precedent to FIR No. 187/2013 State Vs. Ravi Arora Page 13 /16 PS Greater Kailash the admissibility of secondary evidence of electronic record.
16. Disclosure statement not admissible: The whole case of prosecution is based on the disclosure statement of accused. Perusal of the same reveals that when the said statement was suffered by the accused, admittedly, he was in police custody. No effective recovery had been made as per disclosure statement made by the accused. It is well settled that the disclosure statements are not admissible in evidence as per Section 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act subject to the exception as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act but even though the exception have not been proved by the prosecution as admittedly no recovery was effected in pursuance of disclosure statement. No independent witness was joined by the prosecution at the time of making disclosure statement as admitted by PW-11 that no public person was made a witness of recovery. So, the disclosure statement is not admissible and does not prove the case of the prosecution against the accused.
17. No independent witness joined: In the above facts and circumstances of the present case the joining of independent witness was necessary for the purpose of the alleged recovery, however, the same was FIR No. 187/2013 State Vs. Ravi Arora Page 14 /16 PS Greater Kailash not done by the IO. So, it creates a reasonable doubt on the story of the prosecution and as such the benefit of doubt must go to the accused person. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Roop Chand Vs. State of Haryana, 1999 (1)C.L.R 69.
18. Further, it is well settled that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. Clear and unimpeachable evidence is necessary to convict a person. This court finds that such evidence is absent in this case. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Anil s/o Shamrao Sute & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2013(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 541.
19. So, considering the entire evidence brought on record, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused committed the alleged offences. In the light of discussion made above, this court is of the considered view that the evidence led by the prosecution is highly insufficient and discrepant on the material aspects of the case. It is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove its case against the accused present in the court beyond the reasonable doubts. In the instant case, FIR No. 187/2013 State Vs. Ravi Arora Page 15 /16 PS Greater Kailash prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and so he is entitled to benefit of doubt.
20. Accordingly, by giving benefit of doubt to the accused he is acquitted of the charge framed upon him in this case. Case property, if any, be disposed of as per rules after expiry of period of appeal/revision.
21. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Announced in the Open Court on 10.06.2025 (SEEMA NIRMAL) JMFC-09/ SED/ Saket Courts, New Delhi/ 10.06.2025 It is certified by me that this judgment contains 16 pages and each page is digitally signed by me.
(SEEMA NIRMAL) JMFC-09/ SED/ Saket Courts, New Delhi/ 10.06.2025 FIR No. 187/2013 State Vs. Ravi Arora Page 16 /16 PS Greater Kailash