Facts of the Case:

The case involves X, who was accused of sending inappropriate and obscene messages to a former corporator from Borivali, Mumbai, in 2016. The victim, a sitting corporator at the time, received WhatsApp messages on January 26, 2016, from an unknown number. These messages included personal comments like “You are slim, you look very smart, are you married or not?” and “I like you,” followed by obscene photographs and further inappropriate messages. Upon receiving these, the victim informed her husband, who tried to call the number but was met with a refusal to answer. The accused, X, later sent more objectionable content, including explicit photographs. This led to the victim feeling “ashamed” and “outraged,” prompting her to file a police complaint. The accused was convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate Court under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, for insulting the victim’s modesty and sending obscene material electronically.

Contentions of the Petitioner (Accused):

The accused, X, appealed the conviction, arguing that the incident did not occur and that the charges were a result of political rivalry between him and the victim’s family. He contended that the complainant and her husband fabricated the case due to political differences and that no such obscene messages or photographs were sent. He further claimed that he was not responsible for the messages and the explicit content sent from the mobile number registered under his name. The defence argued that the prosecution failed to establish that Gude was the sender of the messages.

Contentions of the Respondent (Prosecution/Complainant):

The prosecution presented evidence, including cyber forensic analysis, to establish that the obscene WhatsApp messages and photographs originated from the appellant’s mobile number. The complainant and her husband, who were both public figures, confirmed receiving the inappropriate messages. The prosecution also pointed out that the accused failed to provide a reasonable explanation for how the messages were sent from his registered mobile number. The cyber forensic report and Vodafone’s service provider records corroborated the evidence, establishing that the accused was indeed responsible for sending the obscene material. The prosecution further asserted that no woman would falsely accuse someone of such acts, especially when her reputation and dignity were at stake.

Court’s Observation:

The court observed that the messages sent to the victim were deeply inappropriate and amounted to an insult to her modesty under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code. The judge emphasized that no respectable married woman or her family would tolerate receiving such messages, particularly from someone with no relationship to them. “No married woman or her husband, who are reputed and Corporator, would bear such WhatsApp messages and obscene photos sent on her mobile in the evening time from 11.00 pm to 12.30 am, especially when there is no relationship with the sender.” The court highlighted that the accused’s failure to explain the use of his mobile number led to an adverse inference under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. Additionally, the forensic analysis and Vodafone’s report confirmed that the messages originated from the accused’s phone, and he failed to provide any explanation or defense.

Court’s Order:

The court upheld the decision of the trial court, rejecting the appellant’s appeal. The conviction under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code for insulting the victim’s modesty, and under Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act for the transmission of obscene material, was upheld. The sentence of three months’ simple imprisonment and a fine imposed by the trial court was deemed appropriate. The court dismissed the appeal, asserting that there was no reason to interfere with the trial court’s judgment, considering the nature of the offense against a woman. “The prosecution has proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt. This Court is in agreement with the findings recorded by the Ld. Trial Court. There is no perversity or illegality.” The court ordered the appellant’s immediate custody for execution of the sentence. The appeal was dismissed with no cost, and the bail bond was cancelled.

Credits: Deeksha Rai