Unexplained Delay in Lodging FIR and Investigative Discrepancies Vitiate Prosecution Case for Criminal Intimidation

The complainant, Rupesh Kumar Dhritlahre (a Dakpal), alleged that on 02/06/2016, he received frequent threat messages on his mobile for snatching money and death threats from Mobile No. 7049002431.

A written report was submitted to the Superintendent of Police on 13/06/2016, claiming a prior report was made to the police on 06/06/2016 which saw no action.

Investigation revealed the mobile number belonged to Sanni Deval Khadiya (PW-2), who claimed he lent it to the respondent.

The respondent was charged under Section 507 of the IPC. The Trial Court acquitted the respondent on 03/08/2021, leading the State to file this acquittal appeal.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the identity and possession of the offending mobile device by the respondent beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and lack of corroborating evidence regarding the initial report invalidated the prosecution's case.

The Court applied Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, governing appeals against acquittal.

Section 507 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which penalizes criminal intimidation by anonymous communication or having taken precaution to conceal the name or abode of the person from whom the threat comes.

Procedural compliance under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the production of documents/things and Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. regarding examination of witnesses by police.

The Court found significant discrepancies in the police investigation and evidence. First, while the Nodal Officer (PW-4) provided subscriber details on 15/07/2016 identifying Sanni Deval Khadiya as the owner, the police took action against the respondent without explaining how they linked him to the device prior to formal notices.

An alleged confession in an endorsement on a Section 91 Cr.P.C. notice was disbelieved because the Investigating Officer (PW-5) admitted he did not write that portion, rendering the "confession" suspicious.

The testimony of PW-2 (the owner) that he lent the phone to the respondent before leaving for Hyderabad was rejected as no travel documentation was provided.

The Court noted a fatal delay in the FIR; the incident occurred on 02/06/2016, but the report to the SP was made only on 13/06/2016, with no documentary proof of the alleged interim report on 06/06/2016 or any explanation for the 11-day silence.

The Court answered both issues in the negative, finding the prosecution failed to establish a reliable link between the respondent and the threat messages. The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.