It is the case of the prosecution that, the accused with an intention to extort money criminally intimidated by creating defamatory and derogatory e-mail messages about the daughter of the complainant and sent those messages to the daughter of the complainant to her e-mail ID and demanded money from her under a threat that he would sell those e-mail to porn sites, mms brokers and DVDs, when she did not heed to the demands, the accused has uploaded obscene videos from the internet by using video editing software and created and sent the same and published the obscene information in the electronic form and further went to Chennai and sent courier to the complainant, containing photographs which were the screen shots of the created video and CD containing obscene videos. Under such circumstances, the complainant has fled a complaint against the accused before the jurisdictional police. Accordingly, Cyber Crime Police have registered the case against the accused for the ofences punishable under Sections 292, 3845 and 507 of IPC and 67 of Information Technology Act . The Investigating Officer, after completion of investigation, has fled the charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offences.
In order to prove the guilt of the accused for the ofences punishable under Sections 292, 3844, 3845 and 507 of IPC and 74 of Information Technology Act., C.W.9 is examined as P.W.1. P.W.1 is a seizure mahazar witness, who has deposed in chief-examination that the Cyber Crime Police have summoned him to their office.
It is also pertinent to note that C.W.22 is examined as P.W.20 was not mentioned in the charge sheet as charge sheet witnesses, but he was examined on behalf of prosecution, on the application fled by the prosecution subsequently. Similarly there is no evidence on record to prove that the seized laptop is exclusively belongs to the accused and he alone used it. It is also pertinent to note that as per Ex.P32, there are four drives in the system, but there is no evidence on record to prove that all four drives were used by the accused. It is also important point to be noted at this stage that there are some videos in the ‘D’ drive, but there is no evidence to prove the fact that the said video has link with the accused. Therefore, viewed from any angle and in view of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, both oral and documentary, is not at all sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused for the ofences punishable under Sections 292, 3844, 3845 and 507 of IPC and 67(A) of Information Technology Act, 2000, beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, it is held that the accused is entitled for acquittal for the alleged ofences. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
Ref:
Case No.C.C.No.3999/2011
State by Cyber Crime, Police Station, COD, Bengaluru.
