IMPORTANT POINT
Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act has to be produced to prove WhatsApp chats.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The Trial Court convicted the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”). The maximum sentence imposed is life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC with a fine of Rs.1,00,00/-. We must note that charges were also framed against the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 354D(1)(ii) and 506 of the IPC. The Trial Court acquitted the appellant-accused as far as these offences are concerned. Apart from the appeal against conviction filed by the appellant-accused, an appeal against his acquittal for the three offences mentioned above was filed by the Prosecutrix (victim). The High Court did not interfere in the appeals preferred by the Prosecutrix and the appellant. By the impugned judgment, the judgment of the Trial Court has been

3. This is a case where, at the time of the incident, the Prosecutrix was 28 years old. Both the appellant-accused and the Prosecutrix were married. It is brought on record that the Prosecutrix was a graduate. The allegation made by the prosecutrix is that the appellant was a friend of her husband’s brother. Therefore, she was acquainted with the appellant. On 22nd May 2018, the appellant visited a place called Hansi to consult a doctor. When she was waiting at a bus stand to board a bus to go back to Bhiwani, where she was staying, the appellant came there. He requested the Prosecutrix to accompany him in his car as he was proceeding to Bhiwani. On the pretext that he was having stomach pain and wanted to relieve himself, he took the appellant to a room in the Jindal Guest House at Bhiwani. He bolted the door from inside and then made a forcible intercourse with the Prosecutrix. After taking her objectionable photographs, he threatened her to show the pictures to her family members if she disclosed the incident to anyone.

4. In a case like this, the Court has to consider whether the evidence of the Prosecutrix inspires confidence. While doing so, the Court must not be influenced by minor contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the victim of a sexual offence. It is always difficult for a woman to depose in such cases. Considering the victim's position, her evidence needs to be appreciated.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused has taken us through the evidence of the Prosecutrix and the other material prosecution witnesses. His submission, in short, is that the relationship between the appellant-accused and the Prosecutrix was consensual. He submitted that the appellant-accused and the Prosecutrix moved from place to place, and it is an admitted position that the Prosecutrix willingly accompanied the appellant-accused. He further submitted that if the footage of the CCTV camera in the Jindal Guest House, where the incident allegedly took place, had been produced by the Police, it could have shown that both the appellant-accused and the Prosecutrix happily entered the Guest House and happily left the same. His submission is that the evidence of the Prosecutrix deserves to be rejected.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgments. He submitted that the prosecutrix's evidence cannot be discarded on technical grounds when, in substance, the Prosecutrix has established that there was forcible sexual intercourse. He further submitted that the law is settled that the Prosecutrix may not sustain any injuries and, therefore, her version cannot be disbelieved on the ground that she did not suffer any injury. He lastly submitted that there is no scope to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the Prosecutrix relied upon the WhatsApp conversation between the Prosecutrix and the appellant-accused. He submitted that though the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 187