The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence to establish the accused's role in the commission of the offences and the mandatory requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act for electronic evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.2.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Janjgir Champa, in Sessions Trial No.163/2011, by which the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant in the following manner:­

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.5.2011 at 1 p.m. the victim (PW­6), aged about 14 years, had gone to computer shop in Bagadia Complex, Akaltara for computer training in which the appellant herein was used to impart the training, but on that day, the victim (PW­6) did not come back to her house, then the victim's father Ghanshyam Rajwade (PW­1) started searching his daughter and thereafter missing report was lodged by Ghanshyam Rajwade (PW­1) to Police Station Akaltara, which was registered in Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P­1). It is further case of the prosecution that on 20.5.2011 the appellant had taken the victim (PW­6) to Raipur informing her that computer training is imparted at Raipur in better way and wrongfully confined her and demanded Rs.5,00,000/­ as ransom by making phone call to parents of the complainant / victim and threatened her to kill if amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ is not being given. Thereafter on 23.5.2011 the appellant came along with the complainant near temple at Raipur Railway Station, at that time, Subhash Kumar Rajwade (PW­5) (brother of the complainant) and Anil Kumar Chandra (PW­4) came there and they brought the complainant (PW­6) and the appellant to the Police Station Akaaltara and pursuant to which, offences were registered. The complainant (PW­6) was medically examined and from the possession of the appellant, one mobile phone bearing number 9770826590 was seized vide Ex.P­11 from which call details have been taken, which have been proved by Rajendra Shrivastava (PW­10). Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC and after due investigation, the appellant was chargesheeted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, Janjgir for trial. The accused/appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence.

3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents Exs.P­1 to P­16. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 of the CrPC was recorded in which he denied guilt. However, he examined none in his defence and no document has been produced in his defence.

4. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 7.2.2012 convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 363, 364­A and 368 of the IPC and sentenced for the period as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment, against which, this criminal appeal has been preferred.

5. Mr.Sumit Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit as under:­

(i) That, offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship under Section 361 of the IPC has not been established.

(ii) That, offence under Section 364A of the IPC has not been established as alleged call details (Ex.P­10) lacks certification requirement under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and therefore, it is inadmissible in evidence.

(iii) That, offence under Section 368 of the IPC has also not been proved against the appellant. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, Mr.Anmol Sh