Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. PW-5 Arun Singh from Bharti Airtel.

10. PW-6 is Sandeep Rana, Assistant Manager Legal from rediff.com.

11. PW-7 is Deepaker Chakrawarti from Bharat Matrimony who stated that he was working with Bharat Matrimony since 2008. Their company provides a marriage service site called as Bharat Matrimony.com on internet. Anyone is free to create a profile for matrimony alliance on our site. Our company does not charge any amount for creating of profile on Bharat Matrimony.com. On 27.06.2008, he received a letter from D.S. Maan, DSP, CBI to provide date, time, IP address of using which profile number H1803336 was created on 28.03.2008, Ex PW7/1. In reference to this letter, he submitted a reply on 03.07.2008 to CBI officer alongwith the home page of Bharat Matrimony.com, Ex PW7/2. He informed the IO that profile in question was created on 28.03.2008 at 15:46:11 IST and it was created from IP address 122.163.254.16. The last log in on this profile number H1803336 was on 26.06.2008 at 17:37:29 IST. Their company has no role or check on the person creating profile. Anybody can create such a Page no. 4 of 30 matrimonial ID.

21. PW-17 Charanjeet Singh is a supervisor of cable network who acquired franchise of sify internet service provider whose internent was installed in the house of the accused.

22. PW-18 Shyam S Nair from sifi technology stated that he had submitted information regarding IP address 221.35.95.223.

23. PW-19 Satya Prakash Sharma from MTNL, Kidwai Bhawan who provided IP address which was allocated through telephone no. 23315496 to one Nirmal Kumar Saraf, Nai Delhi House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.

43. DW-13 is Surender Kumar Chhabra, maternal uncle (mama) of complainant.

44. Thereafter, DE was closed.

45. Thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments.

46. Ld PP for CBI has argued that during the investigation it was revealed that it was the accused Harinder Singh who had sent obscene e-mails (nude pictures and video clips) to the complainant and her friend or relatives and he had uploaded profile of the complainant on Bharat Matrimony without her consent and thereafter he was arrested. Ld PP for CBI has stated that aforesaid facts has been proved by PW-1 complainant Aarti Dua herself, PW-2 Harsh Sapra and her elder sister Puja Suri who has been examined as PW-3. Ld PP for CBI has also stated that witness Pankaj Sharma is a witness of seizure of computer CPUs from M/s Globetel Pvt Ltd. Ld PP for CBI has further pointed out that though the accused had not disputed that he had not sent the e- mails and obscene pictures to the complainant or her friend or her sister, however, the same has been proved by the prosecution witnesses. Even otherwise he has stated that IP address of the computer were identified by witness Pankaj Sharma. He had identified IP address of M/s JS Travels where accused was working and Globetel Page no. 8 of 30 Pvt Ltd in the office of which accused used to visit to use the internet. The fact of using the internet of the Globetel Pvt Ltd by accused is proved by PW-11 Durgesh Uniyal who had stated that accused used to visit their office to use internet services and to download visa form. Ld PP for CBI has further pointed out that prosecution witnesses have proved that the obscene e-mails were sent from IP address of the computers on which accused was working. He has further elaborated Section 67 of IT Act stating merely publishing or disseminating of such kind of e-mails/pictures are punishable u/s 67 IT Act. As regard 509 IPC is concerned, Ld PP for CBI stated that accused has created the profile of the complainant on Bharat Matrimony without her consent and he uploaded her personal details, phone number and address on the same due to which she received number of marriage proposals on her e-mail ID due to uploading of her profile on Bharat Matrimony and, therefore, Section 509 IPC is also attracted. Ld PP for CBI has also stated that witnesses have proved documents i.e. e-mails sent by accused to the complainant, her friend Harsh Sapra and her sister Puja Suri. He has also stated that case has been proved against accused successfully and, therefore, accused be held guilty and punished as per law.

52. PW-1 Aarti Dua had moved the complaint before CBI on 22.05.2008 which is Ex PW1/A. As per her allegation, she had received obscene e-mails and nude photographs from 27.09.2007 till 26.11.2007 from e-mails IDs i.e. [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected]. She had placed on record the hard copies of the obscene e-mails and nude photographs which are Ex PW1/2 to 90 & 90-A. She had also stated that her profile was created in Bharat Matrimony which is a Page no. 16 of 30 matrimonial site in March 2008. She had also stated that these obscene e-mails were also sent by unknown person to her elder sister, Pooja Suri and her friend Harsh Sapra. Though, complaint was made in 22.05.2008, however, the statement of witnesses show that complainant and her friend and relatives were in touch with the CBI officials since March 2008. PW-2 Harsh Sapra who is friend of complainant had stated in her cross examination that she went to CBI officials at Lodhi Road in the month of April 2008. Similarly, PW-3 Puja Suri stated that complainant initially made oral complaint to CBI officer Vivek Dutt whose telephone number was taken from internet. She has also stated that within one week or ten days, they came to know of uploading profile of complainant on matrimonial site. She has also admitted that complaint was not made in the month of March but in the month of May 2008. The complainant, PW-3 Puja Suri or her friend PW-2 Harsh Sapra has not explained any reason for delay in filing of complaint, after coming to know about uploading of profile of the complainant on site of Bharat Matrimony. The case of the CBI further is that accused was found to have sent the obscene e-mails to the complainant and PW-2 her friend Harsh Sapra and her elder sister PW-3 Puja Suri. In this regard, it is important to mention here Page no. 17 of 30 that complainant and accused were working in a travel company i.e. M/s Stick Travels and they were very good friends which is concluded from the fact that complainant and accused used to spent time with themselves. Accused had even visited the house of grandmother of complainant at Meham in Haryana alongwith her and other family members. She had clearly admitted in her cross examination that no other friend of her's had visited her Nani's house. She has also admitted that her Jija (husband of PW-3 Puja Suri) had also not visited her Nani's house before his marriage with Puja Suri. Meaning thereby that accused was a special friend of complainant, though complainant had given a complaint of sending of obscene e-mails against unknown persons. The CBI by examining its witnesses had tried to prove that it was accused who had sent these e-mails to complainant and her friend Harsh Sapra, her sister Puja Suri. The defence counsel has argued that it was in the knowledge that complainant and both aforesaid witnesses that messages were sent by accused. Ld counsel for accused had gone to the extent of saying that it was complainant herself who had asked for the obscene e- mails from the accused. In this regard, he had brought the attention of this court towards PW-1/D4 wherein complainant from her e-mail Page no. 18 of 30 ID i.e. [email protected] to accused at his e-mail ID [email protected] wherein had asked him to forward the non veg e-mails sent to him by their friend Hridesh Gupta. It is pertinent to mention here that complainant had admitted sending of e-mails Ex PW1/D1 to Ex PW1/D24 by her to the accused. Perusal of these e-mails show that accused and complainant were having intimate relationship with each other. It would also not be out of place to mention here that accused got married with DW-1 Pritpal Kaur on 14.10.2007, though these e-mails which Ex PW1/D1 & PW1/D24 shows that both of them were in contact with each other even after the marriage of the accused and used to communicate with each other through e-mail. Perusal of these e-mails clearly shows deep intimacy of both of them towards each other. Further complainant in her cross examination admitted that she and accused used to e-mail with each other till April, 2008. It is again reminded at the risk of repetition that complaint was moved in May 2008 and the complainant was having in contact with accused till April 2008. Complainant had stated that she had received obscene e-mails from two e-mail IDs i.e. [email protected] and [email protected]. During her examination in chief, she had Page no. 19 of 30 added one more e-mail ID [email protected]. She also stated that in September 2007, she has also received obscene mails/nude pictures from [email protected]. The CBI had not investigated anything in respect of this e-mail address i.e. [email protected]. At this place, it is important to mention here that two computers were seized from company M/s JS Travels where accused was working. Two computers from M/s Globetel Pvt Ltd were also seized and one hard disk of the computer installed in the house of accused was also seized by CBI, however, the computers or hard disk of the complainant or her friend Harsh Sapra or her sister Puja Suri were not seized by CBI. In this regard, the testimony of PW-4 Pankaj Sharma is relevant who was called by CBI to join the raid and was only witness to the identification of the IP addresses. He had stated that complainant had opened her e-mail box in front of him and had shown e-mails to him, backup of which were taken in CD and were sealed. He clarified that only inbox was checked and sent box and trash box of complainant were not checked at all and CBI had not taken his advice in relation to seeing or examining the trash box and sent box relating to Aarti Dua. He also stated that he was only witness relating to the seizure and identification of the computers and Page no. 20 of 30 IP addresses. The CBI had taken the photographs in CD given by complainant as per its convenience, however, it did not check the sent e-mail of the complainant either before September 2007 or even after September 2007. PW-22 Anuj Arya in his cross examination had stated that he could not comment about the e-mail ID of Aarti Dua and sent box of Aarti Dua. He also stated that it was not felt necessary to request Pankaj Sharma to see sent box and trash box of e-mail ID [email protected]. He also stated that it was not felt necessary to demand IP address to which the e-mails were sent as they had gone through the headers of the mails received by complainant Aarti Dua. He further added that he was having twenty years experience in this field and he was totally neutral and fair in the investigation and that is why he judged that complainant is an aggrieved person. Accused has been charge-sheeted in this case for the reason that experts have found that obscene e-mails from [email protected] and [email protected] were sent to e-mail ID of complainant [email protected] from the computers which were used by accused. Though, it has not been proved that it was the accused who had sent those e-mails, however, accused himself had not denied the same. He had stated that at Page no. 21 of 30 request of complainant herself, he had created e-mail ID [email protected] and thereafter it was changed to [email protected] in October 2007. He denied having email ID [email protected]. CBI has not been able to prove that e- mail ID of [email protected] was created by accused or messages were sent to complainant through this ID by accused. In regard to the messages sent to complainant, the defence of the accused is that messages were sent at the request of the complainant herself. Ex PW1/D4 is clear to this extent that she had demanded non veg e-mails forwarded by Hridesh Gupta from accused. PW-20 Hridesh Gupta had admitted that he has sent obscene e-mails Ex PW20/D1 to his friends. He has also admitted that page no. 20 of Ex PW20/D1 was sent to Harsh Sapra and Aarti Dua. From reading out the e-mail, it is clear that e-mails had sent from Hridesh Gupta to accused and PW-20 Hridesh Gupta in her cross examination has admitted that telephone number 9811898325 belongs to him. The complainant in her initial complaint had not stated anything about [email protected], though she had receiving obscene e-mails from this ID also. Perusal fo PW1/D-8 shows wherein it is stated that ID [email protected] is not Page no. 22 of 30 working and, therefore, person is creating new e-mail ID, [email protected]. It shows that complainant knew who had sent these e-mails to her. This e-mail is dated 19.10.2007, which says "I have some problem in my previous ID ([email protected]), this is my new ID. Do you like my ID's new name, I too bye".