Javed Hussain v. State of Rajasthan
(2006) 2 Cri LR (Raj) 1533
In the High Court of Rajasthan
S.B. Crl. Rev. 506/2006
Before Justice Satya Prakash Pathak
Decided on August 18, 2006

Relevancy of the Case: Framing of charges in a case capturing obscene pictures after intoxicating the victim and sharing them in the public domain

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 67)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 292, 120B)
• The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 (Section 4,6)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 397, 402)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The victim developed a friendship with one Tarun Purohit while taking English coaching classes.
• He asked her to join him for a ride and gave her a cold drink mixed with drugs. Thereafter, he clicked obscene pictures of the victim and started using them to blackmail and harass the victim.
• After some time, the accused (Tarun) came to know that the victim has gone to her hometown. Then, he prepared a clip using these obscene pictures and sent it to her family members.
• During the investigation, the police found that a gang is operating. They are trapping young girls and blackmailing them using their pictures and videos.
• The petitioner is a co-accused in the case pending before the trial court (State v. Tarun Purohit). The investigation has revealed that he received the video from another co-accused.
• After hearing both sides, the Trail Court has passed an order on June 15, 2006, for framing the charges. The petitioner in the present case has filed an appeal against this order.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the victim of the present case. Moreover, the prosecution cannot rely on the statement given by the petitioner under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Opinion of the Bench

• There is sufficient material on record to justify the framing of charges. The bench did not find any substance in considering the revision petition.

Final Decision

• The court dismissed the revision petition.