Obscene video of Mansya Kalan, District Hathras: Part 1

Basic details of the case:

In this article you are going to know about the case Dara Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. It was heard along with two other connected appeals: Ramu Alias Ram Kumar And Anr. vs State Of U.P. and Ravi And Another vs State Of U.P. The matter in question is a Criminal Appeal challenging a conviction order passed by a lower court.  The case was decided by the Allahabad High Court (AHC). The sole presiding judge, who also served as the Author of the Judgment was Hon’ble Amar Singh Chauhan, J. The judgment was pronounced on 17 June, 2016.

Names of Parties:

Appellants: Dara Singh, Ramu alias Ram Kumar, Ravi, and others

Respondent: State Of Uttar Pradesh (UP)

Legal Provisions Discussed

The case involved the interpretation and application of several statutory provisions, including:

• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Sections 147 (Rioting), 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (Intentional insult), 506 (Criminal intimidation), 341 (Wrongful restraint), 354-D (Stalking), and 363 (Kidnapping). The judgment also discussed Sections 304B (Dowry death), 302 (Murder), and 498A (Cruelty by husband) in the context of judicial precedents.
  • Equivalent BNS Sections: Sections 191 (Rioting), 115 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 352 (Intentional insult), 351 (Criminal intimidation), 126 (Wrongful restraint), 78 (Stalking), and 137 (Kidnapping). The judgment also discussed Sections 80 (Dowry death), 103 (Murder), and 86 (Cruelty by husband) in the context of judicial precedents.
• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act): Section 66 (Computer related offences) and Section 67 (Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form).
• The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): Sections 11 and 12 (Sexual harassment), as well as Section 42 (Alternate punishment).
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Sections 216, 217, 218, 221, 222 (relating to framing and alteration of charges), and Section 464(1) (Effect of omission to frame, or error in, charge).
  • Equivalent BNSS Sections: Section 239, 240, 241, 244, 245, 510 respectively.

Precedents/Other Judgments Referred

The AHC referred to and discussed the ratio of the following judgments from the Supreme Court of India:

1. Shaman Sahevsaheb M. Multtani vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 921
2. State of Rajasthan vs. Vinod Kumar, 2012 (6) SCC 770
3. Narwinder Singh vs. State of U.P. 2011 (1) SCC (Crl) 601

Now let us discuss about the case in detail:

Cause of action of complete matter – FIR filed by Mukesh Chaudhary:

The prosecution case originated from an FIR lodged by Mukesh Chaudhary, the father of the victim. The report was lodged on March 8, 2015, at about 14:50 (2:50 PM), and was registered as Case Crime Number: 207 of 2015. The FIR was filed at the Police Station – P.S. Sadabad Kotwali, district Hathras. The FIR named multiple individuals from the village Mansya Kalan, P.S. Sadabad, district Hathras, including: Sanjay son of Than Singh, Dara Singh son of Laxman, Eloo son of Harish, Pankaj son of Som Prakash, Ravi son of Pritam Singh, Ramu alias Ram Kumar. All these names were mentioned in the charge sheet and subsequent proceedings.

Cause of the FIR:

The FIR was prompted after Mukesh Chaudhary was informed by his nephew and others that an obscene video clipping of his daughter was being viewed by the villagers. When the victim was consoled, she narrated the sequence of events, starting with the incident on February 20, 2015.

The core allegations included:

• The accused forcibly stopped the victim and her acquaintance Dhirendra (changed name), while returning from school, took them to a lonely place, and restrained them.
• The accused attempted to outrage the victim’s modesty, beat her, compelled her to sit on Dhirendra, and engaged in unbecoming/obscene behaviour with her.
• The accused recorded a video clipping of the incident and then threatened the victim and her family with death and with making the video viral on the internet if she told anyone.
• When Mukesh Chaudhary confronted one of the accused, Sanjay, he was threatened again and told that the video would be made viral. Sanjay attempted to escape, leaving behind his mobile phone, which contained the obscene video clipping. The recovery of this phone and its contents formed the basis of the charges under the IT Act.

The victim girl was a minor, as her age was explicitly stated by her father (PW 1) as 16 years at the time of the incident, hence the charges framed under the POCSO Act.

Legal Procedure of Police Investigation followed:

The investigation commenced immediately upon the registration of the FIR on March 8, 2015, at P.S. Sadabad Kotwali.

• The FIR was lodged by the victim’s father, Mukesh Chaudhary, under multiple sections of the IPC, including those related to sexual offences, and the IT Act. This officially commenced the police investigation.
• The investigation was entrusted to S.I. Manoj Singh (PW 6).
• The IO performed several crucial steps:
  • A mobile set and CD cassette containing the obscene video clipping were recovered (Exhibit Ka-4) and deposited at the Police Station.
  • The IO recorded the statements of the complainant, the victim, Dhirendra, and other witnesses (PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4, etc.) under Section 161 of the CrPC.
  • The IO visited the places of occurrence and prepared site plans (Exhibit Ka-5 and Ka-6).
  • The victim’s statement was recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC before a Magistrate, giving it greater evidentiary value.
• The accused persons were arrested sequentially.
• Upon concluding the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet to the court, formally accusing the appellants of the commission of various offenses under the IPC, POCSO Act, and I.T. Act.

Trial Court Proceedings (Sessions Court)

The trial following the FIR was conducted before the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Hathras. The case was titled S.T. No. 27 of 2015 (State Versus Sanjay and others). Since the offenses included those punishable with imprisonment for life and death such as Section 363 IPC in conjunction with other severe charges, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial, specifically the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Hathras.

• The Sessions Court formally framed charges against the accused appellants under all relevant sections, including Section 363, 354D, 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC, along with Section 11/12 of the POCSO Act and Section 66/67 of the IT Act.
• The accused were asked if they pleaded guilty to the charges. They denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
• The burden of proof rested on the prosecution. They presented their case by examining seven witnesses (PW 1 through PW 7), who testified and supported the prosecution’s allegations. The defense conducted cross-examination of these witnesses to challenge their testimony and the evidence.
• Although not detailed in the snippet, the accused would have been examined under Section 313 of the CrPC. to offer an explanation for the evidence presented against them.
• The accused would have been given an opportunity to present their own defense evidence (though the judgment does not specify if any was led).
• Both sides presented final arguments. The Trial Court delivered its judgment on October 14, 2015, finding the appellants guilty of all charges and imposing the respective terms of Rigorous Imprisonment and fines.

The Trial Court delivered its judgment and conviction order on October 14, 2015. The appellants, who were accused, were found guilty and sentenced to varying terms of Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) and fines under multiple sections, with all sentences directed to run concurrently. The key convictions and sentences were as follows:

1. Section 363 IPC (Kidnapping)  7 years RI with a fine of ₹10,000/- each
2. Section 66/67 IT Act (Obscene Material on Internet)  5 years RI with a fine of ₹20,000/- each
3. Section 11/12 POCSO Act  3 years RI with a fine of ₹5,000/- each
4. Section 354D IPC (Stalking)  3 years RI with a fine of ₹2,000/- each
5. Section 147 IPC (Rioting)  2 years RI with a fine of ₹1,000/- each
6. Section 504 IPC (Insult to provoke breach of peace)  2 years RI with a fine of ₹1,000/- each
7. Section 506 IPC (Criminal Intimidation)  2 years RI with a fine of ₹1,000/- each
8. Section 323 IPC (Voluntarily causing hurt)  1 year RI with a fine of ₹1,000/- each
9. Section 341 IPC (Wrongful restraint)  1 month Simple Imprisonment (SI) with a fine of ₹500/- each

In India there is concurrent sentencing of imprisonment, means means a person serves sentences for multiple crimes at the same time, serving the longest sentence instead of the sum of all sentences, hence in actual practice, all these accused have to serve 7 years of RI only. But if the punishment becomes consecutive, the total period of punishment must have become 25 years of RI and 1 month of SI.

All the accused have to pay a total fine of ₹41,500 (Rupees Forty One Thousand Five Hundred only). This fine amount is not even covering the infrastructural expense of police and court to administer the investigation and trial of case. Hence there is big room for delay in investigation process and court proceedings. If fine becomes of the amount equal to the infrastructural expense of police and court then some change may come in the speed of trial. Instead of increasing imprisonment, fine must be increased as punishment and such fine shall also include property seizing if the crime is heinous and brutal.

Bookmark this site for part 2 of this article and other law related articles.

Bestseller #1

Combo 5 Bare Acts, Arbitration, Limited Liability Partnership, Co…

₹455

Buy on Amazon

Bestseller #2

பாலியல் குற்றங்களிலிருந்து குழந்தைகளைப் பாதுகாக்கும் சட்டம் 2012 …

₹180

Buy on Amazon

Bestseller #3

POSH Act: Creating a Safe and Respectful Workplace

Buy on Amazon