JUDGMENT Pankaj Jain, J. - These three appeals and the revision are directed against the judgment arising out of FIR No. 144 dated 11th April, 2015 registered under Sections 376D, 376(2)(n), 376, 292, 120-B, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 67 of the I.T. Act, at Police Station Rai Sonepat. 2. Details of conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants are tabulated hereunder :- Name of the convict Offender u/s Period of sentence (RI) Fine Imposed Period of sentence in default of payment of fine (RI) Hardik 376(D) IPC 376(2)(n) IPC 120-B IPC 292 r/w 34 IPC 506 IPC 67-A of Information Technology Act, 2000 Twenty years Ten years Seven years Two years Two years Five years Rs.20,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/- Rs.50,000/- One year Ten months Ten months Two months Two months Five months Karan 376(D) IPC 376(2)(n) r/w 120-B 292 r/w 34 IPC 67-A Information Technology Act, 2000 Twenty years Ten years Two years Five years Rs.20,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.2,000/- Rs.50,000/- One year Ten months Two months Five months Vikas 376 IPC r/w 120-B IPC 292 r/w 34 IPC 67-A of Information Technology Act, 2000 Seven years Two years Five years Rs.10,000/- Rs.2,000/- Rs.50,000/- Ten months Two months Five months 3. Revision is at the hands of the victim 'x' (name withheld) who prays for award of compensation and further submits that the identity of the victim be not disclosed in the records. 4. Victim moved an application before the Police Authorities stating that :- 'I am pursuing my studies of BBA - MBA in Jindal University for the last two years. I had taken admission on 12 August 2013 and I had met with Hardik Sikri on 14 November 2013. We both had remained fast friends for one month and during this he had forced me and he had pressurised me to have sex. Hardik had forcible sex with me. Thereafter, we had broken up ties but he kept on forcing me and he forced me to send my naked photograph which was sent by me on number of Hardik, his number is 09253007007. Through these photographs. Hardik kept me threatening me and black mailed me and threatened me that it I did not have sex with him, he will mail my photographs to his friends and my friends. During this I was compelled to have sex with friends of Hardik namely Vikas and Karan. Through these photographs. Hardik kept me threatening me and black mailed me and threatened me that it I did not have sex with him, he will mail my photographs to his friends and my friends. During this I was compelled to have sex with friends of Hardik namely Vikas and Karan. Karan Chhabra had forcible sex with me two times and Vikas had done forcible sex with me one time. These all works were done in the lawns of University campus after 10 O'clock in the night. All these three boys used to say to me that you keep on have sex with us and if you told to anyone, we will show your pictures in the university. Stern legal action be taken against these three boys. Hardik and Karan had forcible sexual intercourse with me after 10 O'clock in the same night." 5. On her statement, FIR was registered on 11th of April, 2015. On same day, her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. While the matter was under investigation, victim approached Apex Court by way of Writ Petition (Criminal) No.85 of 2015 filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India wherein she prayed for transferring/handing-over the investigation to CBI. SIT was constituted under the orders of the Supreme Court. After investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed. Appellant-Hardik was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 376(D) IPC, 376(2)(n) IPC, 120-B IPC, 292 r/w 34 IPC, 506 IPC and Section 67-A of Information Technology Act, 2000. Appellant- Karan was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 376(D) IPC, 376(2)(n) r/w 120-B IPC, 292 r/w 34 IPC and Section 67-A Information Technology Act, 2000. Appellant-Vikas was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 376 IPC r/w 120-B IPC, 292 r/w 34 IPC and Section 67-A of Information Technology Act, 2000. 6. As per record, prior to moving application before the police on 11th of April, 2015 the prosecutrix along with her parents visited office of Registrar, O.P. Jindal Global University. She complained of sexual harassment, intimidation, black-mailing, tricks to share her private pictures at the hands of Hardik Sikri. Chief Warden and Manager Security were called by the Registrar. On the asking of the Registrar, Security Incharge brought Hardik Sikri to his office. On searching the mobile phone of Hardik Sikri private pictures of prosecutrix were found. She complained of sexual harassment, intimidation, black-mailing, tricks to share her private pictures at the hands of Hardik Sikri. Chief Warden and Manager Security were called by the Registrar. On the asking of the Registrar, Security Incharge brought Hardik Sikri to his office. On searching the mobile phone of Hardik Sikri private pictures of prosecutrix were found. Thereafter, the parents of the prosecutrix proceeded to the police station and lodged the complaint. Prosecution examined the Registrar as PW-12, Surender Kaur Assistant Director and Chief Warden appeared as PW-11. Assistant Professor Severyna Magill was examined as PW-13. They all proved incidents of 11th of April, 2015 prior to filing of complaint with police authorities. Arguments on behalf of Counsel for the appellants 7. Opening the charge on behalf of the appellants, Mr. APS Deol, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant-Karan in CRA-D-653-DB-2017 submits that the judgment convicting the appellants is based upon mere testimony of the victim. The prosecutrix having suppressed material facts from this Court, cannot be treated as trustworthy. The Victim was selective in producing the WhatsApp chats and opted to withhold majority of the same. This calls for drawing adverse inference against her under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. He further submits that the material discrepancies in her statements under Section 164 and that before the Court during trial as PW1 are sufficient to demolish the case of the prosecution. He refers to last two lines of Ex.P-1/A to contend that bare perusal of the same would show that the lines have been squeezed into the complaint after the complainant had signed the same. This shows that it was an afterthought. In the original version there was no allegation of gang rape. Mr. Deol also refers to WhatsApp chats on record especially that on 27th of February, at 9.08 PM where the prosecutrix admits that she never had any relation with anyone else except Hardik. Mr. Deol further refers to various instances recorded in the WhatsApp chat to show that in fact the victim was more than a willing partner in the intimate encounters which she now claims to be without her consent. He relies upon Narender Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012(7) SCC 171 to contend that victim at no point of time conveyed her mental condition from where it could be gauged that the accused was conscious of her being a non-consenting party. Mr. He relies upon Narender Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012(7) SCC 171 to contend that victim at no point of time conveyed her mental condition from where it could be gauged that the accused was conscious of her being a non-consenting party. Mr. Deol has invited attention of this Court to the chat of the victim with various other boys to contend that the victim was an outgoing person and to say that she was being forced into physical relation owing to blackmailing, is beyond comprehension. He, thus, contends that the Trial Court erred in convicting the appellant solely on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix. He further relies upon Tameezuddin @ Tammu vs. State (NCT Delhi), 2009(15) SCC 566 , Uday vs. State of Karnataka, 2003(4) SCC 46 , Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2019(9) SCC 608 . 8. Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate appearing for appellant- Vikas Garg in CRA-S No.2396-SB of 2017 at the outset objects to Vikas having been prosecuted along with the other two accused. Mr. Cheema submits that so far as allegations levelled against Vikas are concerned the same do not constitute offence of rape as defined under Section 375 of the IPC. He further submits that the Trial Court erred in relying solely upon the statement suffered by the prosecutrix. He claims that the WhatsApp chats show that the statement suffered by prosecutrix before the Trial Court was not true and, in these circumstances, statement of prosecutrix being not an evidence of sterling quality ought not have been made sole basis to convict the accused. It has been argued that first application made to the University Authorities which eventually will be the first version has been deliberately withheld which dents the whole case put-forward by the prosecution. He further refers to the cross-examination of prosecutrix to contend that in fact Vikas was being forced to become a witness in this case. After he refused he was implicated falsely at the instance of police. It has been further submitted that Ex.D1 which is one of the first versions, shows that there is no allegation against Vikas and the improvements made by PW1-the prosecutrix, PW6-the mother, PW7-the father ought not have been relied upon. After he refused he was implicated falsely at the instance of police. It has been further submitted that Ex.D1 which is one of the first versions, shows that there is no allegation against Vikas and the improvements made by PW1-the prosecutrix, PW6-the mother, PW7-the father ought not have been relied upon. He refers to the statement of Registrar (PW12) and submits that the said statement of PW12 in fact demolishes the whole case of the prosecution. He further submits that there is no allegation that the appellant-Vikas was member of the alleged WhatsApp Group and there being no chat with him, he deserves acquittal. Mr. Cheema has drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 1st of August, 2015 whereby accused were charge-sheeted and submits that Vikas Garg has been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Section 376/292/120-B IPC read with Section 67-A of the I.T. Act. He claims that neither the Court nor the prosecution was sure of the role assigned to appellant-Vikas Garg. There is no evidence to prove meeting of minds of Hardik and Vikas Garg that could drive-home offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC against Vikas. He refers to Kehar Singh vs. State (Delhi Admn.), (1988)3 SCC 609 to submit that there has to be an evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing unlawful design and there has to be some kind of physical manifestation of agreement to hold the accused guilty which is absent in the present case. He further relies upon State of Kerala vs. P. Sugathan and another, (2000)8 SCC 203 to submit that a few bits here and a few bits there cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of crime and that there must be circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. Similarly, he relies upon Esher Singh vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2004)11 SCC 585 and P.K. Narayanan vs. State of Kerala, (1995)1 SCC 142 . He further relies upon Vadivelu Thevar and another vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 to contend that the well established rule that the Court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence is not without exception. He further relies upon Vadivelu Thevar and another vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 to contend that the well established rule that the Court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence is not without exception. Where the oral testimony is, by its very nature suspect, it is duty of the Court to weigh carefully as to whether such testimony is reliable and free from all taints. Mr. Cheema asserts that there is nothing on record to establish charge framed against the appellant-Vikas as required under the law. Fact that the prosecutrix never raised her voice rather razes the whole case put-forth by the prosecution. It has been asserted that the statement of prosecutrix recorded by the police cannot be treated as a substantive piece of evidence and, thus, in fact there is no allegation against the appellant-Vikas Garg. Similarly, he relies upon the law laid down in Chanan Singh vs. State of Haryana, 1971(3) SCC 466 and Joseph vs. State of Kerala 2003(1) SCC 465 to assert that while appreciating the evidence of an injured witness, the Court is duty bound to ascertain that the evidence tendered by such witness is cogent, reliable and in tune with probabilities and inspires implicit confidence. When such evidence is in conflict with other evidence, it would be unsafe to convict the accused on the sole testimony of the injured witness. 9. Mr. Sartej S. Narula, Advocate while appearing for appellant- Hardik in CRA-D-662-DB of 2017 would submit that the question that will arise before this Court is as to whether at all offence under Section 376 (1) of the IPC is made out. He claims that consensual relations will not fall within the definition of Section 375 IPC. It is not a case of repeated rape/ gang-rap as enumerated in Section 376(2)(n) IPC and/or Section 376-D IPC. Even if the the version of prosecutrix is believed to be gospel truth frequency was just twice in 1 year which won't fall within the definitions of 'repeated rape/gang rape'. He reiterates that a solitary statement of the prosecutrix without any corroboration can not be believed. Even if the the version of prosecutrix is believed to be gospel truth frequency was just twice in 1 year which won't fall within the definitions of 'repeated rape/gang rape'. He reiterates that a solitary statement of the prosecutrix without any corroboration can not be believed. Reliance is being placed upon Rajoo and others vs. State of M.P., 2009(1) R.C.R. (Crl.) 310, Tameezuddin @ Tammu vs. State of (NCT) of Delhi, 2009 (4) RCR (Crl.) 345 and Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, 2020(2) RCR (Crl.) 58. He claims that the prosecutrix has been proved to be an unreliable witness after it came on record that relevant evidence has been withheld by her intentionally. It has been asserted that the rule that 'generally a woman would not stake her chastity' is not absolute. He relies upon Pandurang Sitaram Bhagwat vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005(1) RCR (Crl.) 858 and Dinesh Jaiswal vs. State of M.P., 2010(2) RCR(Crl.) 139 and submits that its not a universal rule. He further claims that there was no circulation of any objectionable photograph which would attract offences punishable under Sections 292 IPC and Section 67-A of the I.T. Act. He claims that, prosecution having failed to prove that the three appellants ever were present together at the time of any incident, its not the case of 376D. He further argues that on bare reading of Section 90 with Section 375 IPC, it is clear that Section 375 IPC being a specific provision dealing with the rape would have overriding effect on the provision of Section 90 IPC. Thus, prosecutrix has to show that her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of 'death' or of 'hurt' to hold the appellant guilty for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. He submits that the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix do not satisfy the ingredients of Section 375 IPC. As per the provision contained in Section 375 IPC, in a consensual encounter the prosecutrix has to show that her consent has been obtained by putting her under fear of death or of hurt to make out a case of rape. He contends that mere blackmailing on the strength of objectionable/obscene material would not fall within the definition of 'death' or 'hurt'. He contends that mere blackmailing on the strength of objectionable/obscene material would not fall within the definition of 'death' or 'hurt'. Heavy reliance is being placed on Tukaram vs. State of Maharashtra, 1979 AIR (SC) 185, Indore Dev. Authority vs. Shailendra, 2018(2) RCR (Civil) 455, J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills vs. State of UP, 1961 AIR(SC) 1170. Mr. Narula further argues that the questions pertaining to offence of gang rape/repeated rape were not even put to the accused while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Refering to the law laid down in Raj Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 2014(6) R.C.R.(Crl.) 107, Inspector of Customs vs. Yashpal and another, 2009(2) R.C.R.(Crl.) 514, he contends that the the whole trial stands vitiated on account of said lapse. Mr. Narula reiterates the argument raised by Mr. Deol and Mr. Cheema and submits that there was no instance of rape mentioned in the original complaint Exhibit PW1/A and the statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. First time the prosecutrix makes detailed allegation w.r.t. the incidents of rape specifically is in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the police authorities. He claims that it has come on record that the said statement was prepared in the chamber of lawyer representing the prosecutrix before the Apex Court. Mr. Narula as well as Mr. Deol both have argued that the allegations w.r.t. gang-rape for the first time were unearthed in this statement of the prosecutrix. So much as so even before Apex Court no such allegation was levelled. A bare perusal of the statement reveals that it is a typed statement which cannot be treated as statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He claims that in fact the evidence on the basis of which Trial Court has convicted the appellants is a tampered evidence. He asserts that from record it is clear that the victim was using two mobile phones. The Apple iPhone has not been produced by the prosecutrix. The other mobile phone which is a Sony Xperia phone was initially withheld by her and she refused to hand-over her mobile phone to the Investigating Agency claiming that the screen had broken. The same was handed-over only after material data has been deleted and possibility of tampering with the WhatsApp chats also cannot be ruled out. The other mobile phone which is a Sony Xperia phone was initially withheld by her and she refused to hand-over her mobile phone to the Investigating Agency claiming that the screen had broken. The same was handed-over only after material data has been deleted and possibility of tampering with the WhatsApp chats also cannot be ruled out. He further claims that the case projected vis-a-vis blackmailing and the prosecutrix being under continuous threat also can't be believed. During the period the incidents complained of occurred, the prosecutrix repeatedly visited her family. Had it been a case of blackmailing there was no reason for the prosecutrix not to confide in her parents or her teachers/fellow students/friends. In support of his arguments, Mr. Narula relies upon the law laid by Supreme Court in Kaini Rajan vs. State of Kerala, 2013(4) R.C.R.(Crl.) 365, Vijayan vs. State of Kerala, 2008(14) SCC 763 . Lastly, he asserts that prosecution has to stand on its legs to prove its case beyond doubt against the accused and the accused has a right to remain silent. Accused is not yoked with the burden to prove facts qua his false implication. He relies upon Narender Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012(3) R.C.R. (Crl.) 66. Mr. Narula relies upon the judgment of Delhi High Court rendered in Mahmood Farooq ui vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2017(4) R.C.R.(Crimnal) 491 to submit that a feeble hesitation cannot be understood as a possible negation of any advance. There has to be a communication by the prosecutrix that conveys that she is not a consenting party. If at all the prosecutrix was raped without her consent, she would have immediately confided in her near ones. He further brought to the notice of the Court that said judgment in Mahmood Farooqui's case ibid has attained finality and has been upheld by the Supreme Court as the Special Leave Petition against the same stands dismissed vide order dated 19th January, 2018. 10. Mr. Narula places reliance upon Mr. Virendra Khanna vs. State of Karnataka, 2021(3) AIR Kar R 455 and submits that accused has a right to remain silent and the Investigating Agency could have well issued direction to the accused to furnish password/passcode in order to open the smart phone of the appellant or he could have approached the Magistrate concerned for such directions. Virendra Khanna vs. State of Karnataka, 2021(3) AIR Kar R 455 and submits that accused has a right to remain silent and the Investigating Agency could have well issued direction to the accused to furnish password/passcode in order to open the smart phone of the appellant or he could have approached the Magistrate concerned for such directions. Since no effort was made by the Investigating Agency to open the phone of the accused which is in custody of the Investigating Agency, WhatsApp chats produced by the prosecution cannot be held to be proved. The crux of the contentions raised by Mr. Narula is that in fact it was a consensual act between the prosecutrix and the appellant-Hardik. Conduct of the prosecutrix can be well inferred from the evidence on record in form of Whatsapp chats. The intimate encounters between the accused and the prosecutrix being act of her own volition can not be termed as act of violating her. She was never under any coercion or threat as is being posed and held by the Trial Court. Arguments advanced by Prosecution: 11. Per contra, State Counsel along with Counsel for the complainant/victim have submitted that it is a settled law that sole testimony of a prosecutrix is enough to prove the guilt of the accused. It has been further submitted that not only the testimony of the prosecutrix is of sterling quality but the same stands fully corroborated by overwhelming evidence on record in the shape of WhatsApp chats and the oral testimonies of the other witnesses. Mr. Randhir Singh, Ld. State Counsel submits that helplessness of the prosecutrix is evident from the record and in fact the treatment meted out to her by the accused is akin to declaration of 'open season' on the native women by the whites in the American history. Mr. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the complainant submits that it is not a case where the prosecutrix 'consented' but it is a case where she was left with no other choice but to 'submit'. Mr. Ahluwalia has extensively read from the Law Commission's Report on Offence of a Rape and 84th Law Commission Report on Rape and Allied Offences dated 25th of April, 1980 to contend that the intent of the legislature is to make the definition of rape as comprehensive as possible and not to restrict the same. Mr. Ahluwalia has extensively read from the Law Commission's Report on Offence of a Rape and 84th Law Commission Report on Rape and Allied Offences dated 25th of April, 1980 to contend that the intent of the legislature is to make the definition of rape as comprehensive as possible and not to restrict the same. He further relies upon Deelip Singh vs. State of Bihar (2005) 1 SCC 88 to submit that while unveiling the dimensions of 'consent' in the context of Section 375 IPC, the Courts have not merely gone by language of Section 90 but have travelled a wider field guided by etymology of the word 'consent'. 12. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Primary Issue : 'Consent' 13. The parties to the lis are at issue w.r.t. 'consent' of the prosecutrix. Prosecution claims that the alleged act was without consent and, thus, will fall within Section 375, whereas it is a case of the appellants that the consent of the prosecutrix is evident on record. In order to constitute offence under Section 375 IPC, the prosecution is required to bring the case within the circumstances as described under Section 375. 14. Thus, the primary question that will arise for adjudication is 'whether the act alleged in the present case can be said to be with consent of the prosecutrix or was without consent ?' Before adverting to the facts of the instant case, it will be apposite to peruse the relevant provisions of law :- 'S. 375. 14. Thus, the primary question that will arise for adjudication is 'whether the act alleged in the present case can be said to be with consent of the prosecutrix or was without consent ?' Before adverting to the facts of the instant case, it will be apposite to peruse the relevant provisions of law :- 'S. 375. Rape.-A man is said to commit 'rape' if he - (a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or (b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or (c) manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of such woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or (d) applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person, under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions:- First.- Against her will. Secondly.- Without her consent. Thirdly.- With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt. Fourthly.- With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married. Fifthly.- With her consent when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent. Sixthly.- With or without her consent, when she is under eighteen years of age. Seventhly.- When she is unable to communicate consent. Explanation 1.-For the purposes of this section, 'vagina' shall also include labia majora. Sixthly.- With or without her consent, when she is under eighteen years of age. Seventhly.- When she is unable to communicate consent. Explanation 1.-For the purposes of this section, 'vagina' shall also include labia majora. Explanation 2.-Consent means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the woman by words, gestures or any form of verbal or non-verbal communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific sexual act: Provided that a woman who does not physically resist to the act of penetration shall not by the reason only of that fact, be regarded as consenting to the sexual activity. Exception 1.-A medical procedure or intervention shall not constitute rape. Exception 2.-Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.' 'S. 90. Consent known to be given under fear or misconception.-A consent is not such a consent as is intended by any section of this Code, if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception; or Consent of insane person.-if the consent is given by a person who, from unsoundness of mind, or intoxication, is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent; or Consent of child.-unless the contrary appears from the context, if the consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of age. 'S. 376. Punishment for rape.-(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which 1 [shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine]. 'S. 376. Punishment for rape.-(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which 1 [shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine]. (2) Whoever,- (a) being a police officer, commits rape- (i) within the limits of the police station to which such police officer is appointed; or (ii) in the premises of any station house; or (iii) on a woman in such police officer's custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to such police officer; or (b) being a public servant, commits rape on a woman in such public servant's custody or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to such public servant; or (c) being a member of the armed forces deployed in an area by the Central or a State Government commits rape in such area; or (d) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a women's or children's institution, commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution; or (e) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or (f) being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman, commits rape on such woman; or (g) commits rape during communal or sectarian violence; or (h) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or (j) commits rape, on a woman incapable of giving consent; or (k) being in a position of control or dominance over a woman, commits rape on such woman; or (l) commits rape on a woman suffering from mental or physical disability; or (m) while committing rape causes grievous bodily harm or maims or disfigures or endangers the life of a woman; or (n) commits rape repeatedly on the same woman, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section,- (a) 'armed forces' means the naval, military and air forces and includes any member of the Armed Forces constituted under any law for the time being in force, including the paramilitary forces and any auxiliary forces that are under the control of the Central Government or the State Government; (b) 'hospital' means the precincts of the hospital and includes the precincts of any institution for the reception and treatment of persons during convalescence or of persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation; (c) 'police officer' shall have the same meaning as assigned to the expression 'police' under the Police Act, 1861 (5 of 1861); (d) 'women's or children's institution' means an institution, whether called an orphanage or a home for neglected women or children or a widow's home or an institution called by any other name, which is established and maintained for the reception and care of women or children." [(3) Whoever, commits rape on a woman under sixteen years of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim: Provided further that any fine imposed under this subsection shall be paid to the victim.] 'S. 376D. Gang rape.-Where a woman is raped by one or more persons constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a common intention, each of those persons shall be deemed to have committed the offence of rape and shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and with fine: Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim: Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim." 15. It needs to be noticed that Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 was enacted by the Parliament to amend the Indian Penal Code; the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences. It needs to be noticed that Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 was enacted by the Parliament to amend the Indian Penal Code; the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences. It was declared in the Statement of objects and reasons of the 2013 Act that the Amending Act sought to amend the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to protect the dignity of women. 16. In the present case, we are concerned with the amended provisions of Section 114A and 146 of the Indian Evidence Act, which read as under :- 2*6# 26 Jan 1:17 am - Hardik : yeah cheej mujhe ptaa hai 26 Jan 1:17 am - 'A' : 45 rs ka 150mb wala pack mil jaega 26 Jan 1:17 am - 'A' : Which stays for 7 days 26 Jan 1:18 am - 'A' : Ye kar wa lo 26 Jan 1:18 am - 'A' : Kal tumhara normal recharge karwa dungi 26 Jan 1:18 am - 'A' : Cus even I need to get a topup 26 Jan 1:18 am - 'A' : Abhi ke liye ye kar lo 26 Jan 1:19 am - Hardik : kal yaad sa kraio subha uthte hi 26 Jan 1:19 am - Hardik : plss 26 Jan 1:20 am - Hardik : net ka 253 vala 26 Jan 1:20 am - 'A': Ok. Subah jitni jaldi ho sake karwa dungi 26 Jan 1:20 am - 'A' : But abhi ke liye us number ko dial kar lo 26 Jan 1:20 am - 'A' : And balance le lo 26 Jan 1:21 am - Hardik : tu kya kar rhi hai 26 Jan 1:22 am - 'A' : Looking for a place to go and buy a cheap dildo 26 Jan 1:31 am - Hardik : mujhe dikhaa jaldi 26 Jan 1:31 am - 'A' : Nahi mil raha 26 Jan 1:32 am - 'A' : Hai bhi to in palika bazar 26 Jan 1:32 am - Hardik : order kar abhii 26 Jan 1:32 am - 'A' : It's shameful to order such a thing 26 Jan 1:32 am - Hardik : mujhe nh ptaa yr 26 Jan 1:32 am - 'A' : Can't I just make one 26 Jan 1:32 am - Hardik : jo marji kar 26 Jan 1:32 am - 'A' : YouTube se dekh ke 26 Jan 1:32 am - Hardik : abhi order 26 Jan 1:32 am - Hardik : kar 26 Jan 1:33 am - 'A' : Kyun beizzati karwa na chahte ho meri 26 Jan 1:33 am - Hardik : bxxxxxx samj nh aata kyaa 26 Jan 1:33 am - 'A' : Nahi ata 26 Jan 1:33 am - 'A' : Cus I'm scared of ordering it to campus 26 Jan 1:33 am - Hardik : mxxxxxx aage mat bola kar aise rxxxx 26 Jan 1:34 am - Hardik : abhi oreder kar mene bol dia na 26 Jan 1:34 am - 'A' : Cus gate pe sare packets check hote hai 26 Jan 1:34 am - 'A' : U order it na 26 Jan 1:34 am - 'A' : Itna insist kar rahe ho jab 26 Jan 1:34 am - Hardik : nh hote check uski apne xxxxx mein daal lio do cheeje mangva le 26 Jan 1:34 am - Hardik : o bxxxxxxx faltu na bol mere aage btaa rha ahu 26 Jan 1:34 am - Hardik : chup chap mangvaa le 26 Jan 1:35 am - 'A' : Subah kar lun ? 26 Jan 1:35 am - 'A' : Aram se check karne ke baad ? 26 Jan 1:35 am - 'A' : Aram se check karne ke baad ? 26 Jan 1:35 am - Hardik : abhi kar bol diaa na tujhe 26 Jan 1:35 am - 'A' : Kar dungi na 26 Jan 1:36 am - Hardik : trko smaj nh aata kya be 26 Jan 1:36 am - Hardik : abhi bol dia na 26 Jan 1:36 am - 'A' : Doing it 26 Jan 1:36 am - 'A' : 26 Jan 1:36 am - 'A' : Kaha phasa diya mujhe 26 Jan 1:37 am - Hardik : jaldi kar drame mat cxxx mere aage 26 Jan 1:41 am - Hardik : ?? 26 Jan 1:42 am - 'A' : Yu making me do this 26 Jan 1:42 am - 'A' : They all r very expensive 26 Jan 1:42 am - Hardik : 'A' xx ab dubara nh boluga matlb nh 26 Jan 1 :42 am - Hardik : jaldi order kar le 26 Jan 1:42 am - 'A' : Problem kya hai tumhari 26 Jan 1:43 am - Hardik : teri mx xx xxxxx xx aage bol rhii hai phr 26 Jan 1:43 am - 'A' : I'm looking for a cheap one 26 Jan 1:43 am - Hardik : phr jaldi kar le na rxxx 26 Jan 1:47 am - Hardik : hui nh kyaa abhi tak ?? 26 Jan 1:48 am - 'A' : Hold on 26 Jan 1:49 am - Hardik : haa 26 Jan 1:52 am - Hardik : ?? 26 Jan 1:48 am - 'A' : Hold on 26 Jan 1:49 am - Hardik : haa 26 Jan 1:52 am - Hardik : ?? 26 Jan 1:56 am - Hardik : xx khaa gyii ab tu 26 Jan 1:56 am - 'A' : Trying to order it only 26 Jan 1:58 am - Hardik : itna time thodi lagta hai 26 Jan 1:58 am - 'A' : Cod wale mil hi nahi rahe hai 26 Jan 1:58 am - 'A' : Sare bank transfer wale hai 26 Jan 1:59 am - 'A' : And I can't use my card 26 Jan 1:59 am - Hardik : yrr jaldi kar jo kar rhi hai 26 Jan 1:59 am - Hardik : or jaldi dikhaa 26 Jan 1:59 am - Hardik : kon sa kia 26 Jan 1:59 am - 'A' : Nahi ho raha hai na 26 Jan 1:59 am - 'A' : Isliye bol rahi thi subah aram se kar dungi 26 Jan 1:59 am - Hardik : bxxxxx sun tera bhot drame ho gye 26 Jan 1:59 am - 'A' : Hadbadi mei nahi hota mujhse 26 Jan 1:59 am - 'A' : Kya drane 26 Jan 2:00 am - 'A' : Drame 26 Jan 2:00 am - 'A' : Harkate tum karo, aur kehte ho drama mai kar rahi hun waah 26 Jan 2:00 am - Hardik : bxxxxxx subha tera baap aa ke karega abhi b tune khud karna hai . baad mein b tune bxxxxxx jaldi kar le 26 Jan 2:00 am - Hardik : bxxxxxxx harkate aise bol rhi hai jese tere ghr pa aa ke teri ma ko xxxx gyaa hu 26 Jan 2:00 am - 'A' : Mujhe maaf karo Jo Aap se behes karne baith gayi 26 Jan 2:01 am - 'A' : Nahi. Shukar hai Ghar nahi aye 26 Jan 2:01 am - 'A' : But harkat wise I meant u getting after me to buy a xxx toy 26 Jan 2:01 am - 'A' : When I'm telling u I dont need it 26 Jan 2:01 am - 'A' : Cus that toothbrush is a battery one. Shukar hai Ghar nahi aye 26 Jan 2:01 am - 'A' : But harkat wise I meant u getting after me to buy a xxx toy 26 Jan 2:01 am - 'A' : When I'm telling u I dont need it 26 Jan 2:01 am - 'A' : Cus that toothbrush is a battery one. It vibrates as well 26 Jan 2:02 am - Hardik : yrr sun mujhse itna baar baar nh bol sakta jb ek baar bol dia na toh usse kar jb bol toh bil dia 26 Jan 2:02 am - 'A' : Does the same job 26 Jan 2:02 am - Hardik : kutte ki bachi 26 Jan 2:02 am - Hardik : sxxx kamini 26 Jan 2:02 am - 'A' : And it's free of cost. And is not shameful also 26 Jan 2:02 am - 'A' : Haan hun mai kamini 26 Jan 2:02 am - Hardik : rxxxx ki pilli 26 Jan 2:02 am - 'A' : Mujhe apne izzat ki padi hai 26 Jan 2:03 am - Hardik : ku mera mu kharab kraa rhi hai 26 Jan 2:03 am - Hardik : baar baar gaila bulva ke 26 Jan 2:03 am - 'A' : Mat karo.na kharan 26 Jan 2:03 am - 'A' : Kharab 26 Jan 2:03 am - Hardik : teri xx xxxx duga ab 26 Jan 2:03 am - 'A' : Don't talk only 26 Jan 2:03 am - Hardik : last baat puchuga kasam sa aj xx bhot ho gyaaa 26 Jan 2:03 am - 'A' : Hardik pls meri baat dhyaan se suno aur samajhne ki koshish karo 26 Jan 2:04 am - Hardik : order abhi kar rhi hai yaa nh? or sahi btaa rhaa hu aj soch samj ke naa kario ma kuch nh sunuga sahi bol rhaa hu 26 Jan 2:04 am - 'A' : U said use that brush instead of xxxxxx. I did. or sahi btaa rhaa hu aj soch samj ke naa kario ma kuch nh sunuga sahi bol rhaa hu 26 Jan 2:04 am - 'A' : U said use that brush instead of xxxxxx. I did. That brush works on battery, it also vibrates 26 Jan 2:04 am - Hardik : bes aj subha tune bhot badi gxxxxx harkat kar chuki hai 26 Jan 2:05 am - 'A' : Subah kya kiya maine aisa 26 Jan 2:05 am - Hardik : jo pucha hai uska jwab de jaldii 26 Jan 2:05 am - 'A' : Jo abhi tak wahi baat leke baithe hue ho 26 Jan 2:05 am - 'A' : No I have not managed to order it till now Cus now where r they giving the option of cash on delivery 26 Jan 2:06 am - Hardik : trko sabak sikhana hoga jb manegi tu mxxx xxxx teri ab apni ka xxxxx tu 26 Jan 2:06 am - 'A' : Sirf bank transfer ka option aa raha hai. And card mai use nahi kar sakti for ordering this 26 Jan 2:06 am - 'A' : Cus message sidhe mom ke phone pe jata hai 26 Jan 2:06 am - Hardik : kal order hua hona chyaa ma itnaa bol rhaa hu 26 Jan 2:07 am - 'A' : Aur Kitna sabak sikhana chahte ho de 26 Jan 2:07 am - Hardik : mrko uski info ki pic screen ahot chya 26 Jan 2:07 am - Hardik : ki bua rxxxx na order kar dia hai 26 Jan 2:07 am - Hardik : bas isse jada time nh de sakta 26 Jan 2:07 am - 'A' : Can I normally ask u something 26 Jan 2:08 am - Hardik : ab bol dia na 26 Jan 2:08 am - 'A' : Haan I know bol diya 26 Jan 2:08 am - 'A' : But I just wanna know one thing. 26 Jan 2:09 am - Hardik : tune oreder kamna hai bas jo bol dia bol dia 26 Jan 2:09 am - 'A' : Dildo hi kyun 26 Jan 2:09 am - 'A' : Jab asli chees se Khush hu 26 Jan 2:09 am - 'A' : Then y buy an artificial one 26 Jan 2:09 am - Hardik : kutte ki bachi abhi tune kyaa bola tha subha pkaa 26 Jan 2:10 am - Hardik : ab phr apni mx xxxxxx rhi hai 26 Jan 2:10 am - 'A' : Haan subah dekh lungi 26 Jan 2:10 am - Hardik : dekh subha tak ka time da dia hai 26 Jan 2:10 am - 'A' : But kyun kar rahe ho aise 26 Jan 2:10 am - 'A' : Kyun chahiye 26 Jan 2:10 am - Hardik : agar kar dia toh good for u only nh kia bad ka b ptaa lag jayga 26 Jan 2:10 am - Hardik : ab na bolio kuch 26 Jan 2:10 am - 'A' : I mean Wat is the need 26 Jan 2:11 am - 'A' : I'll do it. Cus I dont want u to do anything wrong XXXXX 27 Jan 4:08 pm 'A' : They r saying ki teen din mei hi mil sakta hai aapko, cod option hai na 27 Jan 4:09 pm - 'A' : Not online payment 27 Jan 4:09 pm - 'A' : Friday ko kar lena wo kaam 27 Jan 4:11 pm - Hardik : mx xx xxxxx teri 27 Jan 4:11 pm - Hardik : mujhe nh ptaa 27 Jan 4:11 pm - 'A' : Kya hai ab 27 Jan 4:12 pm - 'A' : Ek to pehle hadbadi mei mangwaya 27 Jan 4:12 pm - 'A' : Courier service hai, helicopter nahi hai Jo aaj bolun to aaj hi deliver ho jaye 27 Jan 4:12 pm - 'A' : *courier service nahi hai 27 Jan 4:13 pm - Hardik : mujhe nh ptaa 27 Jan 4:13 pm - Hardik : thursday matlb thursday 27 Jan 4:13 pm - 'A' : U know I can't pay online 27 Jan 4:13 pm - 'A' : They said sorry 27 Jan 4:13 pm - Hardik : friday sa late aaya phr dekh lio tu 27 Jan 4:13 pm - Hardik : rxxxx 27 Jan 4:13 pm - 'A' : It will take three days 27 Jan 4:13 pm - Hardik : ab jo kaam bola hai vo kar tu 27 Jan 4:13 pm - Hardik : rxxxx 27 Jan 4:13 pm- 'A' : Friday ko aa jaega 27 Jan 4:13 pm - Hardik : rxxxxx 27 Jan 4:14 pm - 'A' : Haan isliye to washroom mei hun 27 Jan 4:14 pm - 'A' : Doing ur work only 27 Jan 4:17 pm - Hardik : bhj naa 27 Jan 4:17 pm - Hardik : rxxxxx 27 Jan 4:17 pm - 'A' : Sending 27 Jan 4:17 pm - Hardik : itnii der lagti hai kyaa kutte ki bachi 27 Jan 4:17 pm - 'A' : Washroom bhi na use karun ab 27 Jan 4:17 pm - 'A' : Ruk jao 27 Jan 4:19 pm - Hardik : bhj yrr 27 Jan 4:19 pm - Hardik : clear bhj le bxxxxxxx 27 Jan 4:25 pm - 'A' : Kaha gaye 27 Jan 4:25 pm - Hardik : thanku 27 Jan 4:25 pm - 'A' : Who is it ? 27 Jan 4:25 pm - 'A' : Hardik thank u for Wat ? 27 Jan 4:25 pm - 'A' : Hardik thank u for Wat ? 27 Jan 4:26 pm - 'A' : Wat r u doing ??? 27 Jan 4:26 pm - 'A' : I hate u for doing this 27 Jan 4:27 pm - 'A' : Hardik ?? 27 Jan 4:27 pm - 'A' : Pls stop this joke 27 Jan 4:28 pm - 'A' : Hello ? 27 Jan 4:31 pm - 'A' : Kaha gaye ? 27 Jan 4:32 pm - 'A' : Dude pls stop this 27 Jan 4:32 pm - 'A' : It's freaking me out now 27 Jan 4:32 pm- 'A' : I'm going offline. Bye. Since ut not interested 27 Jan 4:32 pm- 'A' : Ur 27 Jan 4:39 pm - 'A' : 27 Jan 4:58 pm - Hardik : fxxx u 27 Jan 4:58 pm - 'A' : Yaar pls 27 Jan 4:58 pm- 'A' . Normally tumhara itna jaldi. Kabhi nahi hota hai. 27 Jan 4:59 pm - 'A' : Then to receive that thank u, made me feel as if someone else texted me from ur phone 27 Jan 4:59 pm - Hardik : hahahah majja aaya 27 Jan 4:59 pm - 'A' : Ya pata nahi tum kya kar rahe ho 27 Jan 4:59 pm - Hardik : chal ab next time dhyan rakhio 27 Jan 5:00 pm - 'A' : Did someone actually c them ? 27 Jan 5:00 pm - 'A' : Cus dildo ki baat bhi kar raha tha wo 27 Jan 5:00 pm - Hardik : i don't no 27 Jan 5:00 pm - 'A' : Hardik stop ot 27 Jan 5:00 pm - 'A' : It 27 Jan 5:00 pm - 'A' : I know ur trying to test me again and again 27 Jan 5:00 pm - 'A' : But to be frank I can't take it anymore 27 Jan 5:01 pm - Hardik : lol u will 27 Jan 5:01 pm - Hardik : 27 Jan 5:01 pm - 'A' : Hardik pls stop it 27 Jan 5:01 pm - 'A' : Itni gaaliyan dena achi baat nahi hai 27 Jan 5:02 pm- 'A' : Nahi chahiye 27 Jan 5:02 pm - 'A' : 27 Jan 5:02 pm- 'A' : But Aap pls shaant ho jao 28 Jan 5:57 pm - 'A' : R u done ? 28 Jan 5:58 pm - 'A' : Now can tell me tum hi baat kar rahe the na mere se ? 28 Jan 6:00 pm - 'A' : And hardik if ur done can I pls go? XXXXX 28 Jan 8:12 pm - 'A' : U saying stuff like video bana liya kisi aur ne. Jab ki I never gave a bxxx xxx to anyone else before chandigarh, and after v had sex in the washroom 28 Jan 8:12 pm - 'A' : And then someone else texts me from ur phone 28 Jan 8:13 pm - 'A' : Ab to ye jaan na bhi mushkil hai if I'm actually talking to u or not 28 Jan 8:13 pm - Hardik : bhadak na kar ab 28 Jan 8:13 pm - Hardik : i m only talking 28 Jan 8:13 pm - 'A' : Haan I know that it's u abhi 28 Jan 8:13 pm - 'A' : But pehle ka bol rahi hun 28 Jan 8:14 pm - Hardik : baa phle b i was 28 Jan 8:14 pm - 'A' : Were u testing me ? 28 Jan 8:14 pm - Hardik : ab vo sb chod 28 Jan 8:14 pm - Hardik : ek xxxx si pose bnaa 28 Jan 8:15 pm - 'A' : Bana dungi. Bas Ek baar bata do if u were testing me or not 28 Jan 8:16 pm - 'A' : Mai Ek baar to kya hazar baar bolne ko aur karke dikhane ko taiyar hun that I won't have xxx wid anyone else other than u 28 Jan 8:16 pm - Hardik : jaldi bhj 28 Jan 8:16 pm - Hardik : phr bxxxxxxx khatam kar apni' XXXXX '28 Jan 8:32 pm- 'A' : Aur Mai pehle bol rahi hun, koi video nahi banega 28 Jan 8:33 pm Hardik : or ma phle bol rhaa hu sxxxxx karte hue bnavani padegi 28 Jan 8:33 pm - 'A' : Kyun 28 Jan 8:33 pm - 'A' : Kya zaroorat hai 28 Jan 8:33 pm - Hardik : mera man hai 28 Jan 8:33 pm - 'A' : Kyun phasana chahte ho mujhe' XXXXXXX '28 Jan 8:46 pm - 'A' : Can I go for dinner now ? 28 Jan 8:46 pm - Hardik : nops 28 Jan 8:46 pm - Hardik : 9.30 jaio 28 Jan 8:46 pm - 'A' : Ohk 28 Jan 8:47 pm - Hardik : chal ab bhj 28 Jan 8:48 pm - 'A' : Abhi ? 28 Jan 8:48 pm - Hardik : haa 28 Jan 8:48 pm - Hardik : puri nude ho jaa 28 Jan 8:48 pm - 'A' : Ambika room mei aa rahi hai, garima ko leke dinner karne jacgi. 28 Jan 8:48 pm - Hardik : heater le jaa andar 28 Jan 8:48 pm - 'A' : Can u wait for 5 mins ? 28 Jan 8:48 pm - Hardik : noo 28 Jan 8:48 pm - Hardik : go fast 28 Jan 8:48 pm - 'A' : Ohk 28 Jan 8:48 pm - Hardik : heater le jaa' XXXXX '28 Jan 9:30 pm - 'A' : Can I go now? 28 Jan 9:40 pm - 'A' : ? 28 Jan 9:57 pm - Hardik : kha p hai 28 Jan 9:57 pm - 'A' : Room 28 Jan 9:58 pm - 'A' : Will go out now. If u allow 28 Jan 10:00 pm - 'A' : So can I goC 28 Jan 10:00 pm - 'A' : Go ? 28 Jan 10:01 pm - 'A' : Ambika Bula rahi hai. 28 Jan 10:02 pm - Hardik : jaldi ayio 28 Jan 10:03 pm - 'A' : Kab tak? 28 Jan 10:03 pm - 'A' : 12 pls ? 28 Jan 10:03 pm 'A' : Thoda friends ke saath time spend karna chahti hu 28 Jan 10:03 pm - Hardik : haa 28 Jan 10:03 pm - 'A' : Ohk 28 Jan 11:17 pm - 'A' : Can I come bak a Lil later ? 28 Jan 11:17 pm - 'A' : Around 12:30 28 Jan 11:17 pm - 'A' : ? 28 Jan 11:17 pm - Hardik : khaa jaa rhi hai ab 28 Jan 11:18 pm - 'A' : Bahar hi hun 28 Jan 11:19 pm - 'A' : So asking if I can come bak around 12 28 Jan 11:19 pm - 'A' : 1 baje tak I shall be in my room waiting 28 Jan 11:20 pm - Hardik : bxxx xx xxxx chup chaap room hole 28 Jan 11:20 pm - 'A' : Abhi ? 28 Jan 11:20 pm - Hardik : haa abhii 28 Jan 11:20 pm - 'A' : 12 baje aa jaungi 28 Jan 11:20 pm - 'A' : Aapne pehke kaha tha ok for 12 28 Jan 11:20 pm - Hardik : jaldii room phoch jaaa 28 Jan 11:20 pm - 'A' : Thodi der aur pls 28 Jan 11:20 pm - Hardik : ab ho gyaa mood change 28 Jan 11:20 pm - Hardik : jaldii room 28 Jan 11:20 pm - 'A' : Acha ok 28 Jan 11:20 pm - Hardik : ab dubara nh boluga 28 Jan 11:20 pm - 'A' : Ok 28 Jan 11:21 pm - Hardik : rxxxx sali phle 12 bolti hai phr 12:30 phr 12:45 be pagal hu kya ab xxxx mraa or room phoch jaa 28 Jan 11:22 pm - 'A' : Maine 12:30 ka bola tha 28 Jan 11:22 pm- 'A' : That by that time I'll be bak 28 Jan 11:23 pm- Hardik : msg dekh upar apna 1 tak phoch gyii tu rxxxx 28 Jan 11:23 pm - 'A' : Uske baad u will find me free only 28 Jan 11:23 pm - 'A' : I said I tak I'll be free waiting in room 28 Jan 11:23 pm - Hardik : naa naa vo toh abhi b free hona padega 28 Jan 11:23 pm - 'A' : Ohk. going baj 28 Jan 11:23 pm - 'A' : Bak 28 Jan 11:23 pm - Hardik : jaldii room phoch jaa rxxxxx 28 Jan 11:23 pm - 'A' : Haan bye to bolne do 28 Jan 11:24 pm - 'A' : Ja hi rahi hun 28 Jan 11:24 pm - Hardik : o xx abhi tak room nh phochi tu 28 Jan 11:24 pm - 'A' : Wo niche hi the 28 Jan 11:24 pm - 'A' : Almost reached 28 Jan 11:24 pm - Hardik : jaldii bhag 28 Jan 11:25 pm - 'A' : Running only 28 Jan 11:25 pm - Hardik : bhag le ooo rxxxxx 28 Jan 11:25 pm - 'A' : Reached 28 Jan 11:26 pm - 'A' : Saans lene do do min pls 28 Jan 11:26 pm - 'A' : Pani pi lun ? 28 Jan 11:26 pm - Hardik : hupp 28 Jan 11:26 pm - Hardik : rxxxxx 28 Jan 11:26 pm - Hardik : jhothi 28 Jan 11:27 pm - 'A' : Seriously having water 28 Jan 11:27 pm - 'A' : Was thirsty 28 Jan 11:27 pm - Hardik : abhi dikhaaa pani pite hue pic 28 Jan 11:27 pm - Hardik : jaldii dikhaaa 28 Jan 11:27 pm - Hardik : bxxx xx xxxx 28 Jan 11:28 pm - 'A' : Camera kholne me time lagta hai 28 Jan 11:28 pm - 'A' : I'm not lying. 28 Jan 11:28 pm - Hardik : aree oo gxxxxxx 28 Jan 11:28 pm - 'A' : Pehle bhi pani pi rahi thi aur ab bhi 28 Jan 11:28 pm - Hardik : kam jhoth bola kar 28 Jan 11:29 pm - 'A' : I'm not lying m serious 28 Jan 11:29 pm - Hardik : haa bas thk hai room bath 28 Jan 11:29 pm - 'A' : ? 28 Jan 11:29 pm - 'A' : Kya 28 Jan 11:29 pm- Hardik : yahi punishment th 28 Jan 11:29 pm - Hardik : ab kahi nh jana tune 28 Jan 11:29 pm - 'A' : Na. Bas water dispenser tak jaungi, in a while to get hot water 28 Jan 11:30 pm - 'A' : And have coffee 28 Jan 11:30 pm - Hardik : coffee ? 28 Jan 11:30 pm - 'A' : Hmm 28 Jan 11:30 pm - Hardik : khaa p 28 Jan 11:31 pm - 'A' : Room mei 28 Jan 11:31 pm - Hardik : haa good 28 Jan 11:31 pm - 'A' : Coffee sachet pada ha 28 Jan 11:31 pm - Hardik : chal byee ab' XXXXXXX '29 Jan 12:45 am - Hardik : khap hai 29 Jan 12:45 am - 'A' : Room. Aur kaha hongi 29 Jan 12:48 am - 'A' : Razai ke andar hun, laptop use kar rahi hu 29 Jan 12:48 am - Hardik : pic 29 Jan 12:48 am - Hardik : fast 29 Jan 3:29 am - Hardik : aoo 29 Jan 3:29 am - 'A' : Haanji 29 Jan 3:44 am - 'A' : Hardik pls mat likhwao 29 Jan 3:44 am - 'A' : I beg u 29 Jan 3:44 am - 'A' : I'm serious I was not talking to anyone after ur last text at 12:51 29 Jan 3:45 am - 'A' : Khud dekh lo 29 Jan 3:45 am - 'A' : Mai kasam se jhooth nahi bol rahi thi 29 Jan 3:45 am - 'A' : Aur nahi lena hai mujhe kisi ka bhi xxxx 29 Jan 3:48 am - Hardik : xxxx gyii ab toh 29 Jan 3:48 am - 'A' : Yaar pls don't do this 29 Jan 3:48 am - Hardik : hahahahah 29 Jan 3:48 am - Hardik : xxxx u 29 Jan 3:48 am - Hardik : rxxxx 29 Jan 3:48 am - 'A' : Haath jod rahi hun aisa mat karo 29 Jan 3:49 am - 'A' : Cus I'm not lying. I was asleep. Laptop gir gaya tha, usko uthake table pe rakh rahi thi, aapka text aya and I replied 29 Jan 3:49 am - 'A' : Cus I was up 29 Jan 3:49 am - Hardik : chup ho jaa 29 Jan 3:49 am - 'A' : Before that I was sleeping, if I was not then the laptop wud not have fallen down from the bed 29 Jan 3:49 am - Hardik : ab toh ho gyaa 29 Jan 3:50 am - 'A' : Yaar aise mat karo pls 29 Jan 3:50 am - 'A' : 29 Jan 3:50 am - 'A' : I beg u 29 Jan 3:51 am - 'A' : But maine koi galti nahi kari hai. I was sleeping. Sach me 29 Jan 3:51 am - Hardik : rxxxx mein rxxxx 'A' rxxxx 29 Jan 3:51 am - 'A' : Ab mai Kaise samjhaun aapko 29 Jan 3:52 am - 'A' : Aise mat karo pls 29 Jan 3:53 am - 'A' : Tum Jo kehte ho sab karti hun. I was sleeping. Sach me 29 Jan 3:51 am - Hardik : rxxxx mein rxxxx 'A' rxxxx 29 Jan 3:51 am - 'A' : Ab mai Kaise samjhaun aapko 29 Jan 3:52 am - 'A' : Aise mat karo pls 29 Jan 3:53 am - 'A' : Tum Jo kehte ho sab karti hun. Kyun aise kar rahe ho 29 Jan 3:54 am - 'A' : Pls mat karo aise 29 Jan 3:54 am - 'A' : I beg u 29 Jan 3:54 am - Hardik : so jaa tu 29 Jan 3:54 am - 'A' : Ohk. 29 Jan 3:55 am - 'A' : But pls Kuch mat karna 29 Jan 3:55 am - Hardik : ho gyaaa 29 Jan 3:55 am - Hardik : ab 29 Jan 3:55 am - 'A' : Yaar pls mat karo aise 29 Jan 3:55 am - 'A' : Tell him to delete it 29 Jan 3:55 am - 'A' : Kaunse page pe likha hai tell me 29 Jan 3:56 am - Hardik : hahahah 29 Jan 3:56 am - Hardik : xxxx u 29 Jan 3:56 am - 'A' : Yaar pls 29 Jan 3:56 am - 'A' : Batao 29 Jan 3:56 am - 'A' : Ek Haanji ki itni badi saza kyun de rahe ho 29 Jan 3:57 am - 'A' : I seriously was asleep 29 Jan 4:06 am - Hardik : cxxx gyii teri xxx ab 29 Jan 4:06 am - 'A' : Yaar pls mat karo aise 29 Jan 4:06 am - 'A' : Kaha kara hai post. Aur kyun 29 Jan 4:06 am - 'A' : Kya bigada hai maine aapka 29 Jan 12:07 pm - Hardik : Kitni galia khayi ratko 29 Jan 1:23 pm - 'A' : Bohot zyada 29 Jan 1:24 pm - Hardik : good 29 Jan 1:31 pm - Hardik : teri videos dekh rhaa tha 29 Jan 1:42 pm - 'A' : But Kuch post to nahi kara tha na confessions page pe 29 Jan 1:42 pm - 'A' : Aur Daaru pi Rakhi thi kya aapne ? 29 Jan 3:18 pm - Hardik : ptaa nh 29 Jan 3:24 pm - 'A' : Kya pata nahi ? 29 Jan 3:29 pm - Hardik : hua ta nh. 29 Jan 3:18 pm - Hardik : ptaa nh 29 Jan 3:24 pm - 'A' : Kya pata nahi ? 29 Jan 3:29 pm - Hardik : hua ta nh. 29 Jan 3:29 pm - Hardik : yaa * 29 Jan 3:32 pm - 'A' : Yaar pls find out if u have done it or not 29 Jan 3:33 pm - 'A' : If yes pls get it deleted 29 Jan 3:33 pm - 'A' : Pls I beg u 29 Jan 3:33 pm - Hardik : ruk dekhta hu 29 Jan 3:33 pm - 'A' : Hmm 29 Jan 3:36 pm - Hardik : call kar 29 Jan 4:17 pm - Hardik : Ooo gxxxxxx 29 Jan 4:20 pm - 'A' : Net issues. 29 Jan 4:20 pm - Hardik : poses bnaaa 29 Jan 4:20 pm - 'A' : With clothes ? 29 Jan 4:20 pm - 'A' : Without 29 Jan 4:20 pm - Hardik : jaldii utar 29 Jan 4:20 pm - 'A' : Kk 29 Jan 4:20 pm - Hardik : kapde 29 Jan 4:21 pm - Hardik : mat bhjio ab 29 Jan 4:21 pm - 'A' : Ab kya hua 29 Jan 4:22 pm - Hardik : call kar 29 Jan 4:27 pm - 'A' : Mai is state mei Hun abhi 29 Jan 4:28 pm - 'A' : I told u I took my top and sweater off 29 Jan 4:28 pm - 'A' : M sweating away. Saans phool rahi hai meri 29 Jan 4:29 pm - 'A' : Khada nahi hua ja raha hai dhang se 29 Jan 4:29 pm - 'A' : Bohot thak gayi hu 29 Jan 4:29 pm - Hardik : dekh le screen shot 29 Jan 4:29 pm - 'A' : Yaar pls mat karo aise 29 Jan 4:29 pm - Hardik : tu soch rhi th cxxxxxxx bnaa rhaa tha 29 Jan 4:30 pm - Hardik : vo saari pics ko ikatha kar rhaa tha 29 Jan 4:30 pm - 'A' : Yaar pls mat karo aise 29 Jan 4:30 pm - 'A' : Pls meri aur mxx xxx xxxxx 29 Jan 4:30 pm - Hardik : ku nh manni baat 29 Jan 4:30 pm - 'A' : xxxxx xxxx rahi hai meri ab aur bhi zyada 29 Jan 4:30 pm - Hardik : bola tha 10 ginuga 29 Jan 4:30 pm - Hardik : so nw enjoy ur confesion 29 Jan 4:31 pm - 'A' : Yaar Aap samajh ne ki koshish to karo. Mere mei itna bhagne ki himmat nahi hai 29 Jan 4:31 pm - 'A' : Yaar pls don't do this.' XXXXXX 26. A composite reading of the whole chat reveals that the prosecutrix was at command of Hardik. He used to blackmail her. At times, she had to seek his permission even for having dinner or even to drink water. The incidents pertaining to their visit to Ethnic Resort and the occurrence at Chandigarh stand proved by their WhatsApp chat. The fact that she was videographed while performing oral sex at Chandigarh also stands corroborated. She was forced to buy a sex toy. Time and again she was being threatened with publishing her intimate/obscene pictures, hungama, 'mooh dikhane ke layak nahi chhodunga'. Reference can be made to following chats :- Sr. The fact that she was videographed while performing oral sex at Chandigarh also stands corroborated. She was forced to buy a sex toy. Time and again she was being threatened with publishing her intimate/obscene pictures, hungama, 'mooh dikhane ke layak nahi chhodunga'. Reference can be made to following chats :- Sr. No. Date Time Inference 1 25 January 28 January 28 January 29 January 31 January 16 February 3:45 pm to 4:09 pm 8:45 pm to 9:03 pm 9:30 pm to 11:48 pm 12:07 pm to 4:31 pm 11:14 pm to 11:49 pm 11:40 pm upto 17 Feb 12:15 am Hardik used to ask victim to do crazy things like: a) Run around the campus a) To eat, drink, move only when permitted 2 26 January 01 February 1:22 am upto 10:34 am 12:46 am to 1:00 am Forced to buy a sex toy 3 28 January 7 February 8:23 pm to 8:28 pm 7:16 pm to 10:26 pm Ethnic Resort 4 16 February 27 February 5 March 11:24 pm to 11:25 pm 9:09 pm to 11:18 pm 11:21 am to 11:29 am Threats to ruin the life of victim 27. Reading of the whole chat demonstrates the bawdiness with which the prosecutrix was treated by Hardik. She was not only abused and bruised but was denied even basic dignity to which a living creature is entitled to, leave aside the courtesy and compassion that a human being offers to a fellow. It is evident from the chat that the prosecutrix was in a quagmire. She was noosed and the dilemma that she was facing was not only to keep the noose loose but also to conceal it. Whole of the time she was carrying the burden of the diabolical designs of the accused. Even her mother was not spared and the victim had to hear abuses qua her mother as well. Any resistance on part of the prosecutrix was chewed-out by the accused Hardik even more severely. In such a situation it can't be said that she was a consenting party. Even her mother was not spared and the victim had to hear abuses qua her mother as well. Any resistance on part of the prosecutrix was chewed-out by the accused Hardik even more severely. In such a situation it can't be said that she was a consenting party. Counsels for the appellants have unanimously attacked the statement of the prosecutrix submitting that :- (a) She kept on improving her version from the very first complaint i.e. Ex.D1 submitted by the father of the prosecutrix then to her complaint Ex.PW1/A, then to the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and then to statement before police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and to the ultimate version put-forth by her before the Court. (b) It has been claimed that the WhatsApp chats brought on record were selective and, thus, could not have been read into. (c) There are major discrepancies in the version of the prosecutrix and the versions of the other witnesses. (d) The delay in rebutting the incident is fatal to the stand of prosecutrix. 28. So far as improvement in version of the prosecutrix is concerned, Counsels for the appellants are wrong. Trite it is that FIR is not the encyclopedia which must contain all facts and details. Question is whether alleged improvement amounts to change in version or it is detail of what was said initially. Does it contradict the earlier version? Whether the version put-forth by the prosecutrix before the Trial Court got corroborated or stands contradicted by other evidence on record ? 29. Counsels for the appellants have time and again referred to the chats of the prosecutrix with other boys to put the victim in dock. As per settled law, merely because victim is alleged to be a woman of easy virtue, her testimony cannot be discarded. She has a right to protect her dignity. 30. From the conjoint reading of the testimony of the prosecutrix before the Trial Court and the WhatsApp chat, the version of the prosecutrix gets fully corroborated. She comes out to be a person who may be termed as an open and extrovert but definitely can't be said to be a fibster. Apex Court in Bharvada Gohinbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217 held that - '9. She comes out to be a person who may be termed as an open and extrovert but definitely can't be said to be a fibster. Apex Court in Bharvada Gohinbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217 held that - '9. In the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion ? To do so is to justify the charge of male chauvinism in a male dominated society. We must analyze the argument in support of the need for corroboration and subject it to relentless and remorseless cross-examination. And we must do so with a logical, and not an opiniated, eye in the light of probabilities with our feet firmly planted on the soil of India and with our eyes focussed on the Indian horizon. We must not be swept off the feet by the approach made in the Western World which has its own social mileu, its own social mores, its own permissive values, and its own code of life. Corroboration may be considered essential to establish a sexual offence in the backdrop of the social ecology of the Western World. It is wholly unnecessary to import the said concept on a turn-key basis and to transplate it on the Indian soil regardless of the altogether different atmosphere, attitudes, mores, responses of the Indian Society, and its profile. The identities of the two worlds are different. The solution of problems cannot therefore be identical. It is conceivable in the Western Society that a female may level false accusation as regards sexual molestation against a male for several reasons such as: (1) The female may be a 'gold digger' and may well have an economic motive to extract money by holding out the gun of prosecution or public exposure. (2) She may be suffering from psychological neurosis and may seek an escape from the neurotic prison by phantasizing or imagining a situation where she is desired, wanted, and chased by males. (3) She may want to wreak vengence on the male for real or imaginary wrongs. (2) She may be suffering from psychological neurosis and may seek an escape from the neurotic prison by phantasizing or imagining a situation where she is desired, wanted, and chased by males. (3) She may want to wreak vengence on the male for real or imaginary wrongs. She may have a grudge against a particular male, or males in general, and may have the design to square the account. (4) She may have been induced to do so in consideration of economic rewards, by a person interested in placing the accused in a compromising or embarassing position, on account of personal or political vendatta. (5) She may do so to gain notoriety or publicity or to appease her own ego or to satisfy her feeling of self importance in the context of her inferiority complex. (6) She may do so on account of jealousy. (7) She may do so to win sympathy of others. (8) She may do so upon being repulsed. 10. By and large these factors are not relevant to India, and the Indian conditions. Without the fear of making too wide a statements or of overstating the case, it can be said that rarely will a girl or a woman in India make false allegations of sexual assault on account of any such factor as has been just enlisted. The statement is generally true in the context of the urban as also rural Society. It is also by and large true in the context of the sophisticated, not so sophisticated, and unsophisticated society. Only very rarely can one conceivably come across an exception or two and that too possibly from amongst the urban elites. Because: (1) A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non- permissive Society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. (2) She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracised by the Society or being looked down by the Society including by her own family members, relatives, friends and neighbours. (3) She would have to brave the whole world. (4) She would face the risk of losing the love and respect of her own husband and near relatives, and of her matrimonial home and happiness being shattered. (3) She would have to brave the whole world. (4) She would face the risk of losing the love and respect of her own husband and near relatives, and of her matrimonial home and happiness being shattered. (5) If she is unmarried, she would apprehend that it would be difficult to secure an alliance with a suitable match from a respectable or an acceptable family. (6) It would almost inevitably and almost invariably result in mental torture and suffering to herself. (7) The fear of being taunted by others will always haunt her. (8) She would feel extremely embarrassed in relating the incident to others being over powered by a feeling of shame on account of the upbringing in a tradition bound society where by and large sex is taboo. (9) The natural inclination would be to avoid giving publicity to the incident lest the family name and family honour is brought into controversy. (10) The parents of an unmarried girl as also the husband and members of the husband's family of a married woman would also more often than not, want to avoid publicity on account of the fear of social stigma on the family name and family honour. (11) The fear of the victim herself being considered to be promiscuous or in some way responsible for the incident regardless of her innocence. (12) The reluctance to face interrogation by the investigating agency, to face the court, to face the cross examination by Counsel for the culprit, and the risk of being disbelieved, acts as a deterrent'. 31. While examining case under Section 375 IPC after incorporation of Section 114-A in the Evidence Act by Act No.43 of 1983, Supreme Court in the case titled as State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, (1990)1 SCC 550 observed as under :- '15. It is necessary at the outset to state what the approach of the court should be while evaluating the prosecution evidence, particularly the evidence of the prosecutrix, in sex offences. It is essential that the evidence of the prosecutrix should be corroborated in material particulars before the court bases a conviction on her testimony? Does the rule of prudence demand that in all cases save the rarest of rare the court should look for corroboration before acting on the evidence of the prosecutrix ? Let us see if the Evidence Act provides the clue. Does the rule of prudence demand that in all cases save the rarest of rare the court should look for corroboration before acting on the evidence of the prosecutrix ? Let us see if the Evidence Act provides the clue. Under the said statute 'Evidence' means and includes all statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to the matters of fact under inquiry. Under Section 59 all facts, except the contents of documents, may be proved by oral evidence. Section 118 then tells us who may give oral evidence. According to that section all persons are competent to testify unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind. Even in the case of an accomplice Section 133 provides that he shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. However, illustration (b) to Section 114, which lays down a rule of practice, says that the court 'may' presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars. Thus under Section 133, which lays down a rule of law, an accomplice is a competent witness and a conviction based solely on his uncorroborated evidence is not illegal although in view of Section 114, illustration (b), courts do not as a matter of practice do so and look for corroboration in material particulars. This is the conjoint effect of Sections 133 and 114, illustration (b). 16. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. We have, therefore, no doubt in our minds that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix who does not lack understanding must be accepted. The degree of proof required must not be higher than is expected of an injured witness. For the above reasons we think that exception has rightly been taken to the approach of the High Court as is reflected in the following passage : " It is only in the rarest of rare cases if the court finds that the testimony of the prosecutrix is so trustworthy, truthful and reliable that other corroboration may not be necessary.' With respect, the law is not correctly stated. If we may say so, it is just the reverse. If we may say so, it is just the reverse. Ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix must carry the same weight as is attached to an injured person who is a victim of violence, unless there are special circumstances which call for greater caution, in which case it would be safe to act on her testimony if there is independent evidence lending assurance to her accusation . 17. We think it proper, having regard to the increase in the number of sex violation cases in the recent past, particularly cases of molestation and rape in custody, to remove the notion, if it persists, that the testimony of a woman who is a victim of sexual violence must ordinarily be corroborated in material particulars except in the rarest of rare cases. To insist on corroboration except in the rarest of rare cases is to equate a woman who is a victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to a crime and thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her story of woe will not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars as in the case of an accomplice to a crime. Ours is a conservative society where it concerns sexual behaviour. Ours is not a permissive society as in some of the western and European countries. Our standard of decency and morality in public life is not the same as in those countries. It is, however, unfortunate that respect for womanhood in our country is on the decline and cases of molestation and rape are steadily growing An Indian woman is now required to suffer indignities in different forms, from lewd remarks to eve-teasing, from molestation to rape. Decency and morality in public life can be promoted and protected only if we deal strictly with those who violate the societal norms. The standard of proof to be expected by the court in such cases must take into account the fact that such crimes are generally committed on the sly and very rarely direct evidence of a person other than the prosecutrix is available. Courts must also realise that ordinarily a woman, more so a young girl, will not stake her reputation by levelling a false charge concerning her chastity. 18. Courts must also realise that ordinarily a woman, more so a young girl, will not stake her reputation by levelling a false charge concerning her chastity. 18. But when such a crime is committed by a person in authority, e.g. a police officer, should the court's approach be the same as in any other case involving a private citizen ? By our criminal laws wide powers are conferred on police officers investigating cognizable offences. The infrastructure of our criminal investigation system recognises and indeed protects the right of a woman to decent and dignified treatment at the hands of the investigating agency. This is evident from the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 47 of the Code which obliges the police officer desiring to effect entry to give an opportunity to the woman in occupation to withdraw from the building. So also sub-section (2) of Section 53 requires that whenever a female accused is to be medically examined such examination must be under the supervision of a female medical practitioner. The proviso to Section 160 stipulates that whenever the presence of a woman is required as a witness the investigating officer will record her statement at her own residence. These are just a few provisions which reflect the concern of the legislature to prevent harassment and exploitation of women and preserve their dignity. Notwithstanding this concern, if a police officer misuses his authority and power while dealing with a young helpless girl aged about 19 or 20 years, her conduct and behaviour must be judged in the backdrop of the situation in which she was placed. The purpose and setting, the person and his position, the misuse or abuse of office and the despair of the victim which led to her surrender are all relevant factors which must be present in the mind of the court while evaluating the conduct evidence of the prosecutrix. A person in authority, such as a police officer, carries with him the awe of office which is bound to condition the behaviour of his victim. The court must not be oblivious of the emotional turmoil and the psychological injury that a prosecutrix suffers on being molested or raped. She suffers a tremendous sense of shame and the fear of being shunned by society and her near relatives, including her husband. The court must not be oblivious of the emotional turmoil and the psychological injury that a prosecutrix suffers on being molested or raped. She suffers a tremendous sense of shame and the fear of being shunned by society and her near relatives, including her husband. Instead of treating her with compassion and understanding as one who is an injured victim of a crime, she is, more often then not, treated as a sinner and shunned. It must, therefore, be realised that a woman who is subjected to sex violence would always be slow and hesitant about disclosing her plight. The court must, therefore, evaluate her evidence in the above background. ' (emphasis is ours) 32. In light of the aforesaid law, we find that it is a case where prosecutrix at the initial stage i.e. at the time of Exhibit PW1/A did not elaborate about the ordeal she was going through. From contents of the writ petition filed before the Apex Court by the prosecutrix, it is evident that the allegations against the accused were levelled and all three of them were impleaded as party. Testimony of her mother, who appeared as PW-6 explains the conduct of the prosecutrix when she stated that 'Slowly as my daughter beginning to recollect the torture she was going through two other names i.e. Karan Chhabra and Vikas Garg were revealed as being equal accused'. Definitely after she found that the worst has gone she opened up and spelled out the truth she was earlier ashamed of. In view of the fact that the statement of the prosecutrix before the Court stands fully corroborated from the WhatsApp chats, the attack by the appellants alleging improvement in her version sans merit. 33. The other arrow set loose by the appellants alleging the victim of being selective in producing the WhatsApp Chats also lacks prick. The WhatsApp chat stands fully proved before the Trial Court. Mobile-phone Exhibit MO/A along with the printouts of the WhatsApp Chats remained in possession of police. All the data retrieved has been provided in the hard disks and the hard disks stand proved as Exhibit MO/2 and Exhibit MO/3 along with Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. WhatsApp chats are unique in their form. Mobile-phone Exhibit MO/A along with the printouts of the WhatsApp Chats remained in possession of police. All the data retrieved has been provided in the hard disks and the hard disks stand proved as Exhibit MO/2 and Exhibit MO/3 along with Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. WhatsApp chats are unique in their form. Both the recipient and the sender remain in possession of the WhatsApp messages which being an electronic record as defined under Section 2(1)(T) of the 2000 Act, are admissible by themselves. Once, the prosecution brought on record the WhatsApp Chats and the accused wanted to rebut the same, they could have well led evidence in defence. Having opted not to do so and, thus, having kept best evidence in their possession, adverse inference has to be drawn against the appellants. Contention of Mr. Narula that the appellants are not under obligation to prove the case of the prosecution is not acceptable. Without doubt, every person accused of an offence is protected under Article 20 of the Constitution of India and can't be compelled to be a witness against himself. But if accused is in possession of the best piece of evidence to rebut the incriminating evidence that has come on record but withholds it, the presumption is that the evidence if produced will be unfavourable to him. A lot has been said w.r.t. delay in lodging the FIR. However, the snare the prosecutrix was in, the delay does not emaciate the case of the prosecution. 34. In Nar Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2015(1) SCC 496 Apex Court has laid down that in determining compliance of Section 313 Cr.P.C. the test would be whether the accused got an opportunity to say what he wanted to, in respect of case of prosecution against him. It is not the evidence that needs to be put to the accused but the circumstances being put against him so that he can give a proper explanation to meet the case projected against him. From the examination of the accused(s) under Section 313 Cr.P.C. it is evident that all the circumstances against the accused were put to them. Thus, the plea w.r.t. their being any violation of provisions enumerated under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be sustained. CONCLUSION: 35. From the examination of the accused(s) under Section 313 Cr.P.C. it is evident that all the circumstances against the accused were put to them. Thus, the plea w.r.t. their being any violation of provisions enumerated under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be sustained. CONCLUSION: 35. Thus, not only the Court finds that the statement of prosecutrix as PW-1 is trustworthy but the same stands fully corroborated by the evidence on record in the form of WhatsApp Chats and oral testimony of other witnesses. Consequently, no fault can be found with the Trial Court in believing the same. The Prosecution has successfully proved that the prosecutrix was being blackmailed and forced into an abusive relationship. Hardik and Karan acting in furtherance of common intention committed rape upon the prosecutrix thereby committing offence punishable under Section 376-D IPC. Owing to the repeated rape committed by Hardik, Trial Court has rightly found him to be guilty of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) IPC. Likewise, no fault can be found with conviction and sentence awarded to Karan Chhabra. Similarly, the allegation w.r.t. there being WhatsApp group and the circulation of the obscene/intimate pictures of the prosecutrix being circulated by accused also finds corroboration by the statements made by other witnesses. Thus, no fault can be found with the conviction of Hardik and Karan for offences punishable under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 292 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. 36. So far as appellant-Vikas Garg is concerned, prosecutrix in her testimony before the Court stated that :- 'In January 2014, Hardik Sikri sent his friend Vikas Garg to meet me. Vikas who seemed to know what I was going through appeared considerate as I was in a vulnerable situation and was looking for solace. Vikas later took advantage and physically forced himself upon me in April, 2014. Vikas with whom I was acquainted earlier as he would message me/call me to avail information about one of my female classmates.' 37. Apart from this in the WhatsApp chat, the name of Vikas Garg finds mention in the Chat dated 16th of February, at 11.26 p.m. Relevant Chat is being reproduced here under :- '16 Feb 11:26 pm - 'A': Y is Vikas calling me again? 16 Feb 11:26 pm - Hardik: Vikas?? 16 Feb 11:27 pm - 'A': Uska number to true caller pe block kar rkha hai meine. 16 Feb 11:26 pm - Hardik: Vikas?? 16 Feb 11:27 pm - 'A': Uska number to true caller pe block kar rkha hai meine. But wo aaj aman ke number se bhi call kar rha tha just after calling from his own number 16 Feb 11:27 pm - 'A': I did not pick up any of the calls 16 Feb 11:27 pm - 'A': Haanji Vikas Garg 16 Feb 11:27 pm - Hardik: mujhe nh ptaa 16 Feb 11:27 pm - 'A': Chalo chodo 16 Feb 11:27 pm - Hardik: usko chya hoga 16 Feb 11:27 pm - Hardik: Kuch 16 Feb 11:27 pm - 'A': I've to blocked him 16 Feb 11:27 pm - Hardik: teri xx chya hogi 16 Feb 11:27 pm - 'A': Nahi milegi 16 Feb 11:28 pm - 'A': Ab ye baat chodo' 38. Neither the testimony of the prosecutrix shows that there was any allegation w.r.t. conspiracy between Vikas and the other two accused nor does it can be inferred from the WhatsApp Chat. Qua Vikas Chat between victim and Hardik doesn't help case of prosecution. Inference is that Hardik and Vikas had no meeting of minds and that Hardik did not force Vikas upon victim. The victim was in position to say 'no' to Vikas. Not only this, she conveyed her 'no' for Vikas to Hardik. Thus, the allegation of the prosecution that Vikas was also in cahoots with other two accused could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal preferred by appellant-Vikas Garg is accepted extending benefit of doubt to the accused. 39. As a sequel of discussion held hereinabove, the appeals preferred by the appellants namely Karan and Hardik, are dismissed. 40. Judgment dated 24th of May, 2017 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Sonepat, is maintained except for Vikas Garg, whose appeal stands allowed. 41. In the result, we make the following order :- ORDER (i) CRA-S-2396-SB-2017 preferred by the appellant-Vikas Garg is allowed. (ii) CRA-D-653-DB-2017 preferred by Karan and CRA-D-662-DB-2017 by Hardik stand dismissed. 40. Judgment dated 24th of May, 2017 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Sonepat, is maintained except for Vikas Garg, whose appeal stands allowed. 41. In the result, we make the following order :- ORDER (i) CRA-S-2396-SB-2017 preferred by the appellant-Vikas Garg is allowed. (ii) CRA-D-653-DB-2017 preferred by Karan and CRA-D-662-DB-2017 by Hardik stand dismissed. (iii) The impugned judgment/order dated 24th of May, 2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Sonepat in FIR No. 144 dated 11th April, 2015 registered under Sections 376D, 376(2)(n), 376, 292, 120-B, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 67 of the I.T. Act, at Police Station Rai Sonepat, whereby the appellant-Hardik was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. of 20 years under Section 376(D) IPC, R.I. of Ten years under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, R.I. of Seven years under Section 120-B IPC, R.I. of Two years under Section 292 r/w Section 34 IPC, R.I. of Two years under Section 506 IPC and R.I. of Five years under Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000; appellant-Karan was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. of Twenty years under Section 376(D) IPC, R.I. of Ten years under Section 376(2)(n) IPC r/w 120-B IPC, R.I. of Two years under Section 292 IPC r/w 34 IPC and R.I. of Five years under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and appellant-Vikas was convicted and sentence to undergo R.I. of Seven years under Section 376 IPC r/w 120-B IPC, R.I. of Two years under Section 292 r/w 34 IPC and R.I. of Five years under Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, is set aside qua appellant-Vikas Garg only and, is maintained qua appellants namely Karan and Hardik. (iii) Appellant-Vikas Garg is acquitted of the charges that was framed against him, giving him benefit of doubt. (iv) Fine, if paid, by the appellant Vikas Garg be refunded to him. (v) Revision is disposed off as not pressed. (vi) Identity of victim shall not be disclosed.