Cuttack court acquits 22-year-old man in extortion and cybercrime case

Cuttack: A fast-track court in Cuttack has acquitted a 22-year-old man accused of extortion, cybercrime and sexual offences, citing lack of credible evidence and contradictions in the prosecution’s case.The case was based on a complaint filed by a 17-year-old girl in Feb 2024. In her statement, she alleged that the accused, with whom she had a relationship for the past two years, had taken her intimate photos without consent and later threatened to share them with her husband and others after her marriage in Jan 2024. She further claimed that the accused demanded Rs 4 lakh and shared the photos on an instant messaging app with her and her husband.In the Sept 9 judgment, additional district and sessions judge (fast-track court-II) Sabita Das observed several inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of the woman and her husband. The court noted that no corroborative evidence — either oral or documentary — was produced to support the prosecution’s claims. The testimony of other witnesses, including official witnesses related to seizure of mobile phones and documents, was found to be non-conclusive.The accused was charged under sections 384 (extortion) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, Section 12 of the Pocso Act and sections 66(E) and 67 of the IT Act.After investigation, police filed a chargesheet, and the man was arrested on April 3, 2024. He was released on bail on April 25, 2024. Advocate Haraprasad Panda argued on behalf of the accused, while additional public prosecutor M M Baig represented the prosecution.“In the absence of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence, the court cannot hold the accused guilty,” the judge observed in her order. The court added that as per the cardinal principle of criminal law, any benefit of doubt must go in favour of the accused.Accordingly, the accused was acquitted under Section 235(1) of the CrPC and cleared of all charges. The court also ruled that the girl was not entitled to compensation under Section 33(8) of the Pocso Act, citing lack of evidence of physical or mental trauma and the unreliable nature of her testimony.