ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present application under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the impugned order dated 23.10.2019, in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2018, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval, Dist.: Gir Somnath, rejected the application Exh. 159, filed by the present applicant – accused seeking of documents, in form of electronic record, seized during the investigation and part of chargesheet record.

2. The present applicant along with others have been arraigned as accused in connection with FIR being CR. No. I. 44 of 2018 registered with Veraval City Police Station, Dist.: Gir Somnath for the offences punishable under Sections 37692)(n), 376(d), 357, 354(a)(b)(d), 342, 328, 323, 504, 506(2), 114, 120(B) of IPC and Section 66(E) of Information Technology Act. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the accused have committed rape upon the victim, made sexual harassment, exploited by taking her obscene photographs and video and threatened to upload the same on social media, thereby, committed the alleged offences as referred to above. During the course of investigation, mobile phones and sim cards were seized and same had been sent to FSL at Gandhinagar for examination, as parcel Exh. I, J, K, L, M, N, A36S. On 24.10.2018, the FSL Gandhinagar, submitted its report observing that Exh. I, J, L, M, and A36S, having no obscene contents of the female person - Mark-1, whereas, Exh. K and N having obscene contents i.e. image(s), video file(s) of the female person - Mark-1.

3. The applicant herein moved an application Exh. 159 seeking annexure A, B, D, F, D1, E, E1, F, G and H, as referred by the IO for forensic analysis which are in the form of DVDs and CDs. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties, rejected the application observing that granting the prayer would affect the privacy and dignity of the victim and further observed that so far right of the accused is concerned, he would be allowed to watch DVD-R, CDs along with his advocate when the trial will commence.

4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the application, the applicant is before this Court by way of present petition.

5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Harshit Tolia and Mrs. Krina Calla, the learned APP for the respondent State.

6. Replying on the decision P. Gopalkrishna @ Dileep Vs. State of Kerala and others, (2020) 9 SCC 161, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that accused is entitled to all the documents relied by the prosecution under Section 207 Cr.P.C.. including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court along with police report. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that those articles wherein no any obscene contents being detected, shall have to be supplied to the accused for his proper defence and for rest of articles, before the trial, the accused or his counsel may be permitted to watch CDs and DVDs.

7. On the other hand learned APP in support the impugned order contended that the learned trial Court has rightly protected the privacy of the victim and refused to supply the copy of electronic record, as sought by the applicant and therefore, no any interference is required by this Court.

8. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and on careful consideration of the case records, it appears that the applicant accused is facing the trial of rape, abduction, sexual harassment. It is not disputed that the IO of the case has seized mobile phones and sim cards of the accused and victim involved in the alleged crime and same had been sent to FSL at Gandhinagar for analysis and vide letter dated 24.10.2018, the FSL Authority submitted its report, observing that the Exh. I, J. L, M and A36S having no any obscene contents whereas, Exh. K and N having found obscene contents of female M1.The data of all the articles were retrieved from cell phones and are copied on DVD-R as mentioned in the rep