Partly allowed

Khem Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC26 Nov 2024CRA/1080/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the conviction of three appellants for publishing obscene material (IT Act Section 67) due to lack of FSL evidence proving ownership of the device. The court maintained the rape conviction against the principal offender, reducing his sentence from life to 10 years.

What did the court decide?

Conviction for Section 67 IT Act set aside; Conviction for Section 376 IPC maintained with sentence reduced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment.

Khem Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

CRA No. 1010 of 2019; CRA No. 1080 of 2019 & CRA No. 1535 of 2019

¶3

Digitally ANKIT signed byANKITKUMAR KUMAR SINGH SINGH Date:2024.11.30 17:08:22 +0530

¶4

2024:CGHC:46516

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

CRA No. 1010 of 2019

¶8

(Arising out of judgment dated 21.06.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.02/2018 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.)

¶9

Ravi Kumar Tandan S/o Suresh Kumar, aged about 24 years, Caste – Satnami, R/o Village Rengakathera, Outpost – Jalbandha, Police Station – Khairagarh, District – Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgah.

¶10

---- Appellant

¶11

versus

¶12

State of Chhattisgarh, through Outpost – Jalbandha, Police Station – Khairagarh, Crime No. 303/2017, District – Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

---- Respondent

¶14

For Appellant :- Mr. Ashesh Kumar, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent-State :- Mr. R.S. Marhas, Additional Advocate General.

¶15

CRA No. 1080 of 2019

¶16

Khem Singh S/o Late Meghuram, aged about 23 years, Caste Lodhi, R/o Village Rengakathera, Police Chowki Jalbandha, Police Station Khairagarh, DistrictRajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

---- Appellant

¶18

¶19

CRA No. 1010 of 2019; CRA No. 1080 of 2019 & CRA No. 1535 of 2019

¶20

Versus

¶21

State of Chhattisgarh, through – Station House Officer, Police Chowki Jalbandha, Police Station Khairagarh, District – Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶22

---- Respondent

¶23

For Appellant :- Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate. For Respondent-State :- Mr. R.S. Marhas, Additional Advocate Geneal.

¶24

CRA No. 1535 of 2019

¶25

Toran Banjare S/o Bahursingh, aged about 32 years, Caste – Satnami, R/o Village – Kekrajbod, Chowki Jalbandha, P.S. - Khairagarh, District – Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶26

---- Appellant

¶27

Versus

¶28

State of Chhattisgarh, through O.P. - Jalbandha, P.S. - Khairagarh, District – Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶29

---- Respondent

¶30

For Appellant :- Ms. Pooja Loniya, Advocate For Respondent-State :- Mr. R.S. Marhas, Additional Advocate General.

¶31

Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶32

Judgment On Board (27.11.2024)

¶33

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

¶34

Since all the three appeals have been arisen out of the common impugned judgment dated 21.06.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District

¶35

¶36

CRA No. 1010 of 2019; CRA No. 1080 of 2019 & CRA No. 1535 of 2019

¶37

Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No.02/2018, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

¶38

Assail in the present criminal appeals filed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC preferred by the sole appellant in CRA No.1535/2019 namely Toran Banjare (A-1); sole appellant in CRA No.1010/2019 namely Ravi Kuman Tandan (A-2) and the sole appellant in CRA No.1080/2019 namely Khem Singh (A-3), is to the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment dated 21.06.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.02/2018 by which they have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶39

Conviction of A-1		Sentence of A-1
Under Section 376 of the IPC	Imprison 1,000/- a fine amo simple im	ment for life with fine of₹ nd in default of payment of unt to undergo additional prisonment for 6 months.
Under Section 506 Part II read with Section 34 of the IPC	Rigorous with fine payment additiona months.	imprisonment for 7 years of 500/- and in default of ₹ of fine amount to undergo l simple imprisonment for 3
Under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short “I.T. Act”).	Rigorous with fine payment additiona months.	imprisonment for 3 years of 300/- and in default of ₹ of fine amount to undergo l simple imprisonment for 2

¶40

¶41

CRA No. 1010 of 2019; CRA No. 1080 of 2019 & CRA No. 1535 of 2019

¶42

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶43

Conviction of A-2 & A-3	Sentence of A-2 & A-3
Under Section 67 of the	Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years
Information Technology	with fine of 300/- each and in ₹
Act, 2000 (for short “I.T.	default of payment of fine amount
Act”).	to undergo additional simple imprisonment for 2 months.

¶44

Prosecution story:-

¶45

On 31.07.2017 at about 2:00 pm, under the bridge near nahar nala khaar at village Rengakhar, Police Chowki Jalbandha, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, A-1 has committed sexual intercourse with major victim (PW-5) against her wishes and also had given instruction to A-2 & A-3 to make an obscene video of the same and thereafter made it viral, thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

¶46

It is further case of the prosecution that on the date of offence, the victim had gone for agricultural work at village Kekrajbod, and after doing her work, she had her lunch and when she went to answer the nature’s call, A-1 gagged her mount with his hand and took towards under the bridge and committed sexual intercourse against her wishes and had given instruction to A-2 & A-3 to make video of that incident and also they threatened the victim

¶47

¶48

CRA No. 1010 of 2019; CRA No. 1080 of 2019 & CRA No. 1535 of 2019

¶49

that they would viral the video of the incident, if she told about the incident to anyone. When the victim told about incident to her family member and villagers, the appellants viral the video. Thereafter, the victim (PW-5) reported the matter to the police vide Ex.P/6 pursuant to which FIR was registered vide Ex.P/7. From the possession of A-2 mobile containing IMEI No. 357151/08/351761/5 & IMEI No. 357152/08/351761/3 and from the possession of A-3 mobile containing IMEI No. 352514/08/2577549 & IMEI No. 352515/08/257754/6 were seized vide Ex.P/17 proved by Investigating Officer, Yogesh Kumar Rathore (PW-15). Vide Ex.P/3 mobile having IMEI Nos.911549103944645 & 911549103944652. Victim was medically examined by Dr. Leela Ram Teke (PW-16) and she (PW-16) prepared the medical report of the victim vide Ex.P/21. As per medical report of the victim (Ex.P/21) proved by Dr. Leela Ram Teke (PW-16) no external injuries were found over the external part of the body and the victim was found active in doing intercourse. Dr. Leela Ram Teke (PW-19) had prepared the slides and sent it for chemical analysis to FSL. Officer of the FSL laboratory had questioned from the concerned Superintendent of Police vide Ex.P/19 dated 14.11.2017 that what is the

¶50

¶51

CRA No. 1010 of 2019; CRA No. 1080 of 2019 & CRA No. 1535 of 2019

¶52

justification/rationale of sending slides for chemical analysis after 2 months of the incident. Similarly, mobile phone which was seized vide Ex.P/3 and the mobiles phones which were seized from the possession of A-2 & A-3 vide Ex.P/17 were sent for chemical analysis to FSL, but FSL report has not been brought on record for the reason best known to the prosecution.

¶53

After due investigation, appellants herein were chargesheeted for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellants / accused persons abjured their guilt and entered into defence.

¶54

In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents, whereas, defence, in support of its case, has not examined any witness, but exhibited 3 documents. The statement of the appellants / accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶55

¶56

CRA No. 1010 of 2019; CRA No. 1080 of 2019 & CRA No. 1535 of 2019

¶57

The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellants / accused persons for the offences as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which these appeals have been preferred by the appellants herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶58

Submission of the Parties:-

¶59

Ms. Pooja Loniyad, learned counsel for A-1, submits that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt. She further submits that the FIR has been lodged with a delay of 3 months which has not been explained by the prosecution and also there is no medical evidence available on record to base the conviction of A-1 for offence under Section 376 of the IPC. She further submits that no evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution with regard to offences under Section 506 Part II of the IPC and Section 67 of the I.T. Act., as such, appellant-Toran Banjare (A-1) is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt.

¶60

Mr. Ashesh Kumar and Mr. Vivek Singhal, learned counsels for A-2 & A-3 submit that the mobile phone

¶61

¶62

CRA No. 1010 of 2019; CRA No. 1080 of 2019 & CRA No. 1535 of 2019

¶63

which was seized vide Ex.P/3 containing IMEI Nos. 911549103944645 & 911549103944652 and the mobile phones containing IMEI Nos. 357151/08/351761/5 & 357152/08/351761/3 mobile containing IMEI Nos. 352514/08/2577549 & 352515/08/257754/6 were only purchased by the appellants (A-2 & A-3). Furthermore, no FSL report has been brought on record to prove the fact that the said seized mobile has contained the objectionable video of the victim and A-1, as such, the prosecution has not been able to bring home the offence against the appellants (A-2 & A-3) herein, therefore, they are entitled for acquittal from the offence under Section 67 of the I.T. Act on the basis of benefit of doubt.

¶64

Per contra , Mr. R.S. Marhas, learned State counsel, supports the impugned judgment and submits that prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He also submits that victim (PW5) have clearly supported the case of the prosecution by implicating the appellants herein in the crime in question. He further submits that with regard to delay victim has clearly stated that the appellants had threatened her that if she disclosed the fact with regard to the incident they would viral the video of the incident, due to which she did

¶65

¶66

CRA No. 1010 of 2019; CRA No. 1080 of 2019 & CRA No. 1535 of 2019

¶67

not lodge the FIR against the appellants herein and, therefore, the conviction of the appellants is well merited and the instant appeals deserve to be dismissed.

¶68

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the records minutely.

¶69

:- Discussion & Analysis

¶70

Firstly, we will consider the case of A-1 for offences under Sections 376 & 506 Part II of the IPC and thereafter, the case of the appellants (A-1, A-2 & A-3) for offence under Section 67 of the I.T. Act, 2000.

¶71

Case of A-1 for offence under Sections 376 & 506 Part

¶72

II of the IPC :-

¶73

As per the statement of victim (PW-5), on the date of offence she had gone for the agricultural work to the filed along with one Maheshwari (not examined) and after doing her work, she ate her lunch and when she went to answer the nature’s call, she was followed by A-1, he gagged her mouth with his hand and took her towards under the bridge and committed sexual intercourse against her wishes and A-1 had also instructed A-2 & A-3 to make

¶74

¶75

CRA No. 1010 of 2019; CRA No. 1080 of 2019 & CRA No. 1535 of 2019

¶76

video and to take pictures of the incident, with the help of which, they used to give threat her (PW-5) that they would viral the video of the incident if she informed about the said incident to anyone. However, she (PW-5) reported the matter to the police vide Ex.P/6 pursuant to which FIR was lodged vide Ex.P/7. She (PW-5) has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but nothing has been extracted to hold that she has falsely implicated A-1 in the crime in question. As such, though medical report and FSL report has not supported the case of the prosecution and there is a delay in lodging the FIR, but the delay in lodging the FIR has been explained by the victim as the appellants (A-1, A- 2 & A-3) had made obscene/objectionable video of the victim and threatened her that they would viral the video if she informed anyone about the incident, therefore, she did not report the matter in time.

¶77

In view of the above discussion, the conviction of appellant-Toran Banjare (A-1) for offences under Sections 376 and 506 Part II of the IPC is well merited. However, considering the age of the appellant was 32 years on the date of the offence and there is no evidence available on record that the appellant is a hardened criminal and he is not likely to be a good citizen if the sentence is reduced by

¶78

¶79

CRA No. 1010 of 2019; CRA No. 1080 of 2019 & CRA No. 1535 of 2019

¶80

this Court and there is no evidence that he has committed jail offence during his incarceration, we hereby reduce the sentence of the appellant and award him rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for offence under Section 376 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for offence under Section 506 Part II of the IPC.

¶81

Case of A-1, A-2 & A-3 for offence under Section 67 of

¶82

the I.T. Act:-

¶83

In order to decide the plea raised at the Bar on behalf of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to notice the definition mentioned in Section 67 of the IT Act which states as under: -

¶84

“ 67. Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form .–Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.”

¶85

¶86

CRA No. 1010 of 2019; CRA No. 1080 of 2019 & CRA No. 1535 of 2019

¶87

A careful perusal of the aforesaid definition of Section 67 of the IT Act would reveal that following acts amount to offence within the meaning of Section 67 of the IT Act: -

¶88

Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious; or

¶89

appeals to the prurient interest; or

¶90

if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.

¶91

Therefore, if any of the above acts are committed by a person, offence under Section 67 of the IT Act is attracted. As such, the substantial ingredients of Section 67 of the IT Act are broadly analogous to the provisions contained in Sections 294 and 292(1) of the IPC which deal with the concept of obscenity and which read as under: -

¶92

Section 292(1) of the IPC

¶93

“292. Sale, etc., of obscene books, etc .—(1) For the purposes of sub-section (2), a book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, figure or any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect, or (where it comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items, is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt person, who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.”

¶94

¶95

CRA No. 1010 of 2019; CRA No. 1080 of 2019 & CRA No. 1535 of 2019

¶96

Section 294 of the IPC

¶97

“ 294. Obscene acts and songs .—Whoever, to the annoyance of others—

¶98

(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or

¶99

(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place,

¶100

shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.”

¶101

In order to make it obscene punishable under Section 294

¶102

of the IPC, it must satisfy the definition of obscenity as envisaged in Section 292(1) of the IPC. In the definition of obscenity under Section 292(1) of the IPC, the words used must be in sense lascivious or it must appeal to the prurient interest or deprave and corrupt person. Thus, the elements of obscenity as referred to in Section 294 of the IPC has to be understood from the definition of obscenity as provided in Section 292(1) of the IPC. A comparison of the relevant wordings in Section 292(1) of the IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act would make it clear that in order to make the publication or transmission or causing of publication or transmission in the electronic form to be brought within the contours of Section 67 of the IT Act, it should be one which tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances,

¶103

¶104

CRA No. 1010 of 2019; CRA No. 1080 of 2019 & CRA No. 1535 of 2019

¶105

to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it etc., as afore-stated.

¶106

The Supreme Court in the matter of Ajay Goswami v. Union of India and others 1 while examining the scope of Section 292 of the IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 held as under: -

¶107

“70. … ‘45. … [The] commitment to freedom of expression demands that it cannot be suppressed unless the situations created by it allowing the freedom are pressing and the community interest is endangered.’*”

¶108

Similarly, in the matter of Aveek Sarkar and another v. State of West Bengal and others 2, their Lordships of the

¶109

Scheme Court laid down community standard test applicable for determination of obscenity and it was held that obscenity should be determined from point of view of average person and in context of contemporary mores and national standards, as concept of obscenity keeps on changing with changing social values. Their Lordships laid down community standard test in following words: -

¶110

“ Community standard test

¶111

We are also of the view that Hicklin test³ is not the correct test to be applied to determine

¶112

1 (2007) 1 SCC 143

¶113

2 (2014) 4 SCC 257

¶114

3

¶115

R. v. Hicklin, (1868) LR 3 QB 360

¶116

¶117

CRA No. 1010 of 2019; CRA No. 1080 of 2019 & CRA No. 1535 of 2019

¶118

“what is obscenity”. Section 292 of the Penal Code, of course, uses the expression “lascivious and prurient interests” or its effect. Later, it has also been indicated in the said section of the applicability of the effect and the necessity of taking the items as a whole and on that foundation where such items would tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it. We have, therefore, to apply the “community standard test” rather than the “ Hicklin test ” to determine what is “obscenity”. A bare reading of sub-section (1) of Section 292, makes clear that a picture or article shall be deemed to be obscene

¶119

(i) if it is lascivious;

¶120

(ii) it appeals to the prurient interest; and

¶121

(iii) it tends to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely to read, see or hear the matter, alleged to be obscene.

¶122

Once the matter is found to be obscene, the question may arise as to whether the impugned matter falls within any of the exceptions contained in the section. A picture of a nude/semi-nude woman, as such, cannot per se be called obscene unless it has the tendency to arouse the feeling of or revealing an overt sexual desire. The picture should be suggestive of deprave mind and designed to excite sexual passion in persons who are likely to see it, which will depend on the particular posture and the background in which the nude/semi-nude woman is depicted. Only those sex-related materials which have a tendency of “exciting lustful thoughts” can be held to be obscene, but the obscenity has to be judged from the point of view of an average person, by applying contemporary community standards.”

¶123

¶124

CRA No. 1010 of 2019; CRA No. 1080 of 2019 & CRA No. 1535 of 2019

¶125

The Kerala High Court in the matter of Latheef v. State of Kerala 4, held that under Sections 292(1) and 294 of the IPC, abusive words or humiliating words or defamatory words will not as such amount to obscenity as defined under the law. It was further held that to make obscene the alleged words must involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or the words must have the effect of depraving persons, and defiling morals by sex appeal or lustful desires. It was observed in paragraph 5 as under: -

¶126

“5. Abusive words or humiliating words or defamatory words will not as such amount to obscenity as defined under the law. Of course there is no doubt that the words alleged to have been used by the revision petitioner are in fact abusive and humiliating. But to make it obscene, punishable under Section 294(b) IPC, it must satisfy the definition of obscenity. Section 294 IPC does not define obscenity. Being a continuation of the subject dealt with under Section 292 IPC the definition of obscenity under 292(1) IPC can be applied in a prosecution under Section 294 IPC also. To make punishable, the alleged words must be in a sense lascivious, or it must appeal to the prurient interest, or will deprave and corrupt persons. In P.T. Chacko v. Nainan Chacko reported in (1967 KLT 799) this Court held that, "the test of obscenity is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences." In Sangeetha Lakshmana v. State of Kerala reported in (2008 (2) KLT 745) this Court held thus, "in order to satisfy the test of obscenity, the words alleged to have been uttered

¶127

4 2014 (2) KLT 987

¶128

¶129

CRA No. 1010 of 2019; CRA No. 1080 of 2019 & CRA No. 1535 of 2019

¶130

must be capable of arousing sexually impure thoughts in the minds of its hearers." Thus it is quite clear that, to make obscene the alleged words must involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or the words must have the effect of depraving persons, and defiling morals by sex appeal or lustful desires. I find that the words alleged to have been used by the revision petitioner in this case are really abusive and humiliating, but those words cannot be said to be obscene. As already stated, every abusive word or every humiliating word cannot, by itself, be said to be obscene as defined under the Penal Code, 1860. I find that the conviction against the revision petitioner under Section 294(b) IPC in this case, on the basis of the above words alleged to have been used by him, is liable to be set aside, and the revision petitioner is entitled to be acquitted.”

¶131

Now, the question is whether the the appellants (A-1, A-2 & A-3) herein have rightly been convicted for offence under Section 67 of the IT Act ?

¶132

It is admitted position on record that no electronic device or mobile was seized from the possession of A-1 and as per the prosecution case he (A-1) had only instructed A-2 & A- 3 to make video and to take photographs, as such, except the statement of victim (PW-5), there is no other evidence available on record against A-1. Further, from the possession of A-2 & A-3 mobile phones were seized vide Ex.P/17, proved by Yogesh Kumar Rathore (PW-15), containing IMEI Nos. 357151/08/351761/5 &

¶133

¶134

CRA No. 1010 of 2019; CRA No. 1080 of 2019 & CRA No. 1535 of 2019

¶135

357152/08/351761/3 and IMEI Nos. 352514/08/2577549 & 352515/08/257754/6, respectively, and as per the prosecution, husband of the victim (PW-2) has also produced the mobile phone vide Ex.P/3 containing the objectionable video of A-1 and the victim having IMEI Nos. 911549103944645 & 911549103944652. However, it has not been established on record that it is the appellants who had purchased the said seized mobile phones containing the aforesaid IMEI numbers. Further, as per vide Ex.P/20, proved by Yogesh Kumar Rathore (PW-15), 1 electronic device of 32 G.B. was sent for chemical analysis to FSL, but FSL report has not been brought on record, as such, no documentary evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution that the said seized mobile phones were purchased and owned by the appellants herein by which they had recorded the obscene video of A-1 and the victim and made it viral.

¶136

So far as the oral evidence is concerned, it would be appropriate to notice the statement of husband of the victim (PW-2) in which at paragraph No.11 he has stated that he had seen the obscene video in mobile phone of Bhagdas (PW-11), close relative of PW-2, but in that video he could not identify the persons, though mobile phone of

¶137

¶138

CRA No. 1010 of 2019; CRA No. 1080 of 2019 & CRA No. 1535 of 2019

¶139

Bhagdas (PW-11) has not been seized. However, victim in her statement (PW-5) has stated at paragraph No.15 that she has not seen the viral video in mobile in question or any other mobile. In this regard statement of Investigating Officer Yogesh Kumar Rathore (PW-15) may also be noticed herein in which at paragraph No.14, he has clearly stated that he had not seized mobile phone of Bhagdas (PW-11). However, Bhagdas (PW-11) has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution in whose mobile PW2 is said to have seen the objectionable video of his wife (PW-5). As such, the prosecution has not been able to prove that the objectionable/obscene video in the electronic device was in exclusive possession of the appellants (A-1, A-2 & A-3) herein to constitute the offence under Section 67 of the I.T. Act against them, therefore, the appellants namely Toran Banjare (A-1), Ravi Kumar Tandan (A-2) and Khem Singh (A-3) are acquitted of the charges for offence under Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000 on the basis of benefit of doubt.

¶140

Conclusion:-

¶141

In view of the above discussion, conviction of Toran Banjar (A-1) for offence under Sections 376 of the IPC and 506 Part II is maintained, however for the aforesaid

¶142

¶143

CRA No. 1010 of 2019; CRA No. 1080 of 2019 & CRA No. 1535 of 2019

¶144

offences, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and 3 years, respectively, and the sentences are directed to run concurrently, as held by the trial Court. Further, conviction and sentence of Toran Banjar (A-1), Ravi Kumar Tandan (A-2) and Khem Singh (A-3) for offence under Section 67 of the IT Act is hereby set aside as prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants for offence under Section 67 of the IT Act. Ravi Kumar Tandan (A-2) and Khem Singh (A-3) are reported to be on bail. They need not surrender. However, their bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months as per the provisions contained in Section 437A of the CrPC.

¶145

As a consequence, Criminal Appeal No.1535/2019 filed by Toran Banjare (A-1) is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above and the Criminal Appeals No.1010 & 1080/2019 filed by Ravi Kumar Tandan (A-2) and Khem Singh (A-3) are allowed.

¶146

Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and the copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned

¶147

¶148

CRA No. 1010 of 2019; CRA No. 1080 of 2019 & CRA No. 1535 of 2019

¶149

Superintendent of Jail, forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.

¶150

Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge

¶151

Ankit

Khem Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khem Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siyaram @ Prem @ Lamsena Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Neeraj Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs Shree Shyam Sponge and Power Pvt. Ltd.

Dharam Singh Rathiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Toran Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivakar @ Shiva Yogi Vs State of Chhattisgarh