Creating fear in judge's mind impacts justice system: Ex-court staffer gets 5-year jail term for threatening judge

Creating fear in the mind of a judge affects their ability to function properly and affects the justice dispensation system, a Delhi Court held while sentencing a former court staffer to five years in jail for threatening and trying to extort money from a judge in 2007 [State v. Shiv Shankar Prasad]..Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Dr Pankaj Sharma held the man guilty of offences under Section 387 (putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion) and 506 part II (if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code..The Court observed that the convict, who worked as a Ahlmad or records keeper with the complainant, was aware of the judge’s family members and her vulnerabilities. He was, therefore, found to have acted like an “obdurate criminal” by continuously sending the judge threatening messages with a view to extorting money from her.“It is a matter of fact that at a workplace trust plays an important role and generally co-employees or officer trust his or her support staff. The convict misused the very trust by becoming aware of the vulnerability of his boss and made a sinister plan to extort money from her by putting her in fear of death of her children,” it stated..The man’s threats were observed to be have put the complainant in a state of fear, as the tone and tenor of his messages were enough to raise an alarm. “Being the mother of two children she would have naturally got threatened and same had in fact impacted her mind and work,” the Court noted.The man reportedly sent messages to the judge demanding ₹4 lakh and threatened to kill the children if the sum was not paid. The messages were eventually traced to the man who had worked with the judge earlier..Advocate Lalit Bhati, representing the accused, questioned whether the SMSes in the inbox folder of the complainant’s phone could be termed original, as no certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act was brought on record by the prosecution.It was further submitted that he committed the offence at the age of 27 years and was now 41 years of age. During the intervening time, he did not commit any other offence and was a reformed man having shown remorse for his acts, the counsel argued.Additional Public Prosecutor AT Ansari, on the other hand, urged the Court to show no leniency for it was an “extraordinary case” and the victim was none other than a judge.The Court subsequently observed that there was enough digital evidence and rejected the defence counsel's claims.“The terror created by convict had certainly disturbed her peace of mind and even the tempo of doing her official duties,” it stated..It held that the man not only betrayed the trust of his boss, but shattered the trust that a judicial officer reposes with the support staff.“The crime of the convict is an egregious act which has affected the stream of justice and also created trust deficit among Judges and support staff. The crime committed by convict is required to be dealt in a manner which could prevent recurrence of such incidents in future,” it held.Besides the five-year jail term, the convict was directed to pay ₹1 lakh fine as compensation to the victim judge..[Read Order]