He was facing 16 formal charges, including using an information and communication service to transmit indecent messages and photos. The verdict against the accused was delivered on July 31 in the intermediate court.
The complainant had reported this matter to the police on 11 June 2018, because the accused had allegedly sent her messages and photos of a sexual nature on his Facebook account, via private messaging. She claims that she had never spoken to the accused before, that she did not know him personally and was not friends with him on Facebook. She had also indicated that she knew the accused because he lived in her neighbourhood.
Three messages were sent on June 9, 2018, and eight messages on June 11 of the same year. This, at different times, all through an account in the name of a certain «Nitish Nitish Salvatore»The person behind the profile was demanding sexual favours not only from the complainant but also from her sister and mother, for a fee. Nitish Nitish Salvatore also allegedly sent her five pornographic photos.
The complainant claims to have been mentally affected, frightened and embarrassed, given the content of the messages. However, under cross-examination, she had to concede that she assumed that the accused had sent her these messages because his profile picture appeared on the sender’s account. Furthermore, since the messages refer to her family, she assumed that the sender must have been someone living in her neighbourhood. Since the messages refer to her sister, she also believed and assumed that the accused had sent her the same thing, since the accused knew her sister.
The report on the complainant’s Facebook account, which was duly examined, revealed that the indecent messages sent to her were from the account of Nitish Nitish Salvatore. The accused, who goes by the same name, testified in court that he knew the complainant as his former sister-in-law’s cousin but denied any involvement, saying that the account of Nitish Nitish Salvatore was not his.
The officers of the police IT Unit did not find anything incriminating in the accused’s mobile phone and no evidence that he was using the alias in question. However, they could not find out who was running the account. After listening to the testimonies, Magistrate Pritviraj Balluck exonerated the accused.
