Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, putting to challenge a judgment of conviction dated 27.01.2021 and an order of sentence dated 30.01.2021, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Judge, Saharsa, in S.T. No. 180 of 2019, arising out of Saharsa P.S. Case No. 576 of 2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:—

2. The appellant and his wife were charged of the offences punishable under Sections 384, 386 read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 500 and 501 thereof. They were also charged of the offences punishable under Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 ('IT Act' in short) in the aforesaid trial. Additionally, the appellant was charged of the offences punishable under Sections 376, 354C and 354D of the IPC. By the impugned judgment and order, the trial court has recorded acquittal of the appellant’s wife/co-accused of all the charges for lack of evidence against her. The trial court has acquitted the appellant of the charge of offences punishable under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act, 354C, 500 and 386 of the IPC in absence of any cogent evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish the said charges against him. The trial court has concluded, on appreciation of evidence adduced at the trial, that the prosecution successfully proved beyond all reasonable doubts the charge of commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 and 384 of the IPC against the appellant and accordingly the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment and fine, as noted above.

3. The prosecutrix (PW-2) is the informant, whose computer typed written report dated 28.06.2019 addressed to the Officer-in-Charge, Sadar P.S., Saharsa is the basis for registration of the concerned Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 576 of 2019, disclosing commission of the offences punishable under Sections 384, 386, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC to which Sections 354C, 354D, 376, 420, 500 and 501 of the IPC and Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act were subsequently added under an order dated 08.08.2019 passed by the court below.

4. From the written report of the prosecutrix (PW-2), it transpires that few months before the registration of the FIR, her husband was posted at Gaya. During the said posting at Gaya, the appellant used to come to the residence of the prosecutrix (PW-2) as a domestic help. The prosecutrix (PW-2) alleged in her written report that the other day when her husband had gone to office and her children to school, the appellant was working in her house. On her asking, the appellant prepared tea and gave it to her. The appellant thereafter went to the kitchen. Soon after having taken tea, the prosecutrix (PW-2) collapsed in the bed and became unconscious. Upon regaining consciousness, she realized that something wrong had been committed with her. The appellant had disappeared in the meanwhile. The prosecutrix (PW-2), out of fear, did not disclose anything about the occurrence to her husband. The next day the appellant again came to the prosecutrix’s residence on the pretext as a domestic help. He thereafter displayed to the prosecutrix (PW-2) the photographs and videos, apparently in relation to what he had committed with her the previous day. Under the threat of making the photographs and videos viral on social media, the appellant told her to abide by his wishes. Out of fear the prosecutrix (PW- 2) touched his feet and beseeched him not to make the photographs and videos viral. He, however, did not relent and put off her clothes, committed rape upon her and again prepared numerous photographs and videos. He continued doing such acts subsequently un