Compliance with the requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act is essential for the admissibility of digital evidence, and a defective certificate may be curable depending on the merits of the case.

JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Learned Addl. Session Judge, Women Atrocities Act Cases, Bhilwara in sessions case no. 77/2019 may kindly be quashed and set aside and application/certificate u/s 65 (b) of the evidence act filed by the petitioner for taking on record the documents mentioned therein may kindly be allowed.

Any other appropriate order which this Hon’ble Court deem just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the complainant-prosecutrix submitted a typed report alleging therein that since the past 2 years, to the filing of such report, she was visiting the Bhilwara Court premises, and that the petitioner offered her legal assistance and obtained her mobile phone number. On such pretext, one day the petitioner visited her house and offered her some ‘prasad’ after consuming the same, she became unconscious, and thereafter, the petitioner established physical relations with her, thereby violated her person. The petitioner had also made a video of the same, and threatened the prosecutrix, stating that he would upload the said video, online. It was further alleged that the petitioner had promised to marry the prosecutrix and also took some money and ornaments from her on such promise, and that not only the petitioner but also other family of his threatened and assaulted her. Upon receipt of such report, a case was registered, subsequent thereto a charge-sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 323, 376(2)(n), 384 and 354 IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an application was filed under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 on behalf of the petitioner, to place on record screenshots of conversations on ‘Whatsapp Messenger’ between the prosecutrix and the petitioner, certain photographs sent to the petitioner by the prosecutrix and some other phone call recordings of the petitioner and the prosecutrix, along the requisite certificate as required under the said Section, which was sought to be placed on the record before the learned Court below; but the said application was rejected by the learned court below vide the impugned order dated 30.09.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order is bad in the eye of the law as the said application submitted was in accordance with law, and that even in the case of defect/irregularity the same is curable, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sonu @ Amar vs. State of Haryana, (2017) 8 SCC 570.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that at the time of filing of the charge-sheet against the petitioner, call details of the petitioner were collected by the concerned investigating agency, however the same was not filed along with the said charge-sheet, despite the fact that the petitioner had also supplied copies of the same to the investigating agency.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the digital evidences sought to be brought on the record are essential for a fair adjudication, during the trial going on before the learned Court below, and that therefore, the impugned order ought to be quashed and set aside, while allowing the application under Section 65B of the Act of 1872, as preferred by the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Others, (2020) 7 SCC 1.

8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, as well as learned counsel for the complainant appearing with the complainant present in person, opposed the present peti