Bangalore District Court
Cyber Crime Police Station vs Vinay B M on 28 June, 2024
KABC030473872023 Digitally signed
by MOHAMMED
MOHAMMED YUNUS A
YUNUS A ATHANI
ATHANI Date: 2024.07.01
17:11:35 +0530
Presented on : 18-10-2023
Registered on : 18-10-2023
Decided on : 28-06-2024
Duration : 0 years, 8 months, 10 days
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE COURT, BENGALURU
AT: BENGALURU
Present:- Sri. Mohammed Yunus Athani,
B.A.,L.L.B.
XLV Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2024
C.C.No.26947/2023
Complainant:
The State,
By Police Sub-Inspector,
Cyber Crime Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor)
-V/S-
2
C.C.No.26947/2023
Accused:
Vinay B. M. S/o Manjunath Acharya,
Age: 26 years,
R/o: No.01, 2nd Cross, Kalyana Nagar,
1st Phase, Bengaluru.
(By Sri K. N. Shashidhar, Advocate)
Date of incident 22/01/2018 to 24/01/2018
Date of report 24/01/2018
Date of arrest of accused 01/06/2018
Date of release of accused on 04/06/2018
bail
Period of accused in J.C. 04 days
Name of the complainant Uma Vinay
Date of commencement of 14/06/2024
evidence
Date of completion of 14/06/2024
evidence
Offences charged U/Sec.66(C) & 67 of
Information Technology Act,
2000.
Opinion of the Judge Accused not found guilty.
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector, Cyber Crime Police Station, Bengaluru, has filed the final report against the accused, for the offences punishable U/Sec.66(C) & 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000.
3
C.C.No.26947/2023
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
It is case of the prosecution that, in between the period of 22/01/2018 to 24/01/2018, the accused with an intention to divorce his wife C.W.1, by tarnishing her reputation in the society, has created a fake facebook account in the name of C.W.1 as Uma Lucky Roy (http:www.facebook.com/umalucky.9) and uploaded joint photographs of C.W.1 and her friend C.W.2, posing them as husband and wife and posted obscene messages about them and thereby dishonored and defamed C.W.1. Thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.66(C) & 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000.
3. On the basis of first information statement lodged by the complainant, a case is registered against the accused, for the offence punishable U/Sec.66(C) & 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000. The accused was arrested and produced before the Court. The accused was remanded to judicial custody for 14 days. Meanwhile, on application filed by the accused through his counsel for enlarging him on bail, the accused was released on bail. Thereafter, the investigation officer has conducted the investigation in the case and 4 C.C.No.26947/2023 submitted the final report against the accused, alleging that the accused has committed the offences U/Sec.66(C) & 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000.
4. On receipt of prosecution papers, the cognizance of above offences is taken against the accused and summons were issued to them. Accordingly, the accused has appeared in the case through his counsel. In compliance of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., the prosecution papers were supplied to the accused. Thereafter, the charge for the offence punishable U/Sec.66(C) & 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000, is framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. The accused has denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to substantiate its case and to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined one witness as P.W.1 and got marked one document as Ex.P.1. The P.W.1, who is the first informant/victim in the case, has herself turned hostile to the case of prosecution. As the material witness to the case of prosecution has turned hostile to the case of prosecution, examining the remaining witnesses 5 C.C.No.26947/2023 shown in the charge-sheet would not have served any purpose to the case of prosecution. Hence, in order to save the valuable time of the Court, the prayer of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for issuance of summons to rest of the witnesses shown in the charge-sheet is rejected and evidence of prosecution side is taken as closed. As there are no incriminating circumstances in the evidence of P.W.1, recording of statement of accused as contemplated U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed.
6. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the entire material available on record.
7. The following points arise for my consideration:
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, in between the period of 22/01/2018 to 24/01/2018, within the jurisdiction of Cyber Crime Police Station, the accused with an intention to divorce his wife C.W.1, by tarnishing her reputation in the society, has created a fake facebook account in the name of C.W.1 as Uma Lucky Roy (http:www.facebook.com/umalucky.9) and thereby the 6 C.C.No.26947/2023 accused has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.66(C) of Information Technology Act, 2000 ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the above date, time and place of offence, the accused with an intention to divorce his wife C.W.1, by tarnishing her reputation in the society, has created a fake facebook account in the name of C.W.1 as Uma Lucky Roy (http:www.facebook.com/umalucky.9) and uploaded joint photographs of C.W.1 and her friend C.W.2, posing them as husband and wife and posted obscene messages about them and thereby dishonored and defamed C.W.1 and thereby, the accused has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 ?
3. What order ?
8. My findings on the above points are as under:
POINT No.1: Negative.
POINT No.2: Negative.
POINT No.3: As per the final order for the following:7
C.C.No.26947/2023 REASONS
9. POINT No.1 & 2: As both these points for consideration are inter-connected with each other, in order to avoid repetition of facts and circumstances of the case and for better appreciation of evidence on record, I take both the points together for common discussion.
10. In order to prove its case and to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined one witness as P.W.1 and got marked one document as Ex.P.1. The P.W.1 is the first informant/victim in the case.
11. The P.W.1, who is the first informant/victim in the case, has herself not supported the case of prosecution. She has clearly deposed in her evidence that, the accused was her husband and they both have obtained mutual divorce. Further she has deposed that, no incident as alleged by the prosecution has taken place in between her and the accused. The accused has neither created any fake facebook account in her name, nor he has posted any obscene messages about her and her friend C.W.2. Further, she has deposed that, she has not lodged any complaint against the accused. On account of 8 C.C.No.26947/2023 difference of opinion arose in the marital relationship between her and accused, she went to the Police Station and requested the Police to advise the accused. At that time, the Police have obtained her signature on Ex.P.1. It is pertinent to note that, though P.W.1 has identified her signature on Ex.P.1, she has clearly deposed that, she does not know the contents of said document and she has not lodged any complaint against the accused. Though, the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor treating P.W.1 as hostile witness has cross- examined her in length, nothing worth has been elicited from her mouth, which supports the case of prosecution.
12. As the material witness to the case of prosecution i.e., the first informant/victim has herself turned hostile to the case of prosecution, there is absolutely no incriminating evidence against the accused in the case. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that, the accused has created a fake facebook account in the name of C.W.1 as Uma Lucky Roy (http:www.facebook.com/umalucky.9) and he has uploaded joint photographs of C.W.1 and her friend C.W.2, posing them as husband and wife and posted obscene messages about them. It is pertinent to note that, the P.W.1 9 C.C.No.26947/2023 has clearly deposed in her evidence that, no incident as alleged by the prosecution has taken place between her and the accused and she has not lodged any complaint against the accused. Therefore, in such circumstances and for the reasons stated above, there is no other option before this Court except to hold that, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 & 2 in Negative.
13. Point No.3: In view of above conclusion, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable U/Sec.66(C) & 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by the accused stand canceled.
The interim order with respect to release of mobile phone seized in the case 10 C.C.No.26947/2023 in favour of the accused is made absolute, after expiry of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on the computer, transcript revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28 th day of June, 2024) (Mohammed Yunus Athani) XLV A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution P.W.1: Smt. Uma W/o Vinay.
List of documents exhibited on behalf of prosecution Ex.P.1: First Information Statement List of material objects marked on behalf of prosecution
- NIL -
List of witnesses examined and documents marked on behalf of accused
- NIL -
XLV A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.11
C.C.No.26947/2023 28-6-2024 State by Sr.APP Accused C/B For judgment.
(Order pronounced in open Court vide separate judgment) ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable U/Sec.66(C) & 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by the accused stand canceled.
The interim order with respect to release of mobile phone seized in the case in favour of the accused is made absolute, after expiry of appeal period.
XLV A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.