The requirement of producing a valid certificate for the admissibility of secondary electronic evidence is mandatory, and failure renders the evidence inadmissible, affecting the validity of convictions based on such evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. Since both the Acquittal Appeal filed on behalf of the complainant and the Criminal Appeal preferred by the accused/appellant arise out of the same judgment passed by the learned trial Court, and as the issues involved in both the appeals are interconnected and based on the same set of facts and evidence, it was considered appropriate and in the interest of justice to hear them together. Accordingly, both the appeals have been clubbed, heard analogously, and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Acquittal Appeal No. 65/2013 has been preferred on behalf of the complainant assailing the legality, validity, and propriety of the judgment dated 07.08.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, Civil District Durg, Revenue District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 36/2012. By the said judgment, the learned Trial Court has acquitted respondent No. 2, namely Ramesh Kumar, of the charges punishable under Sections 342, 506-B, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and has convicted him only for the offence punishable under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, ‘IT Act’). For the said conviction, the respondent No.2 has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, and in default of payment of the fine amount, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

3. Criminal Appeal No.82/2014 has been filed by the accused/appellant – Ramesh Kumar, challenging the legality, validity and propriety of very same judgment dated 07.08.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, Civil District Durg, Revenue District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 36/2012. By the said judgment, the learned trial Court has acquitted him for the charges punishable under Sections 342, 506-B, and 376 of the IPC and has convicted him only for the offence punishable under Section 67 of the IT Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, and in default of payment of the fine amount, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the prosecutrix and the accused, Ramesh Kumar Chandrakar, belonged to the same village, Kurra, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Khandsara, District Bemetara. The accused had a borewell for water in his garden, and both he (PW-2) and his wife (PW-1) were engaged in work as boatmen during the “Chhatti” programme held in the said village.

5. According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix (PW-1) had lodged a report at Police Station Khandsara, Bemetara, alleging that during the previous month of Jyeshtha, she had gone to the house of the accused, Ramesh Chandrakar, to fetch water. At that time, the accused was alone at home. Taking advantage of the situation, he had allegedly threatened her with a knife, compelled her to enter a room, and thereafter forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her against her will. It was further alleged that the accused had recorded the said act on a video camera and subsequently used that recording to threaten and coerce her into repeated acts of sexual abuse. When she resisted, he had threatened to make the video public and show it to the villagers and her husband.

6. It was further alleged that the accused had in fact shown the said