JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 14.02.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2023, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 21.12.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in G.R. Case No.307 of 2022 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 354-A, 354-D, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI of two years for the offence under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code, RI of two years for the offence under Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, it is directed to undergo further SI of six months, RI of two years for the offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and RI of two years for the offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts of prosecution case leading to this Criminal Revision are that the informant Meenu Kumari, the then officer-in-charge of Mahila Police Station, Chaibasa gave the written information with the Sadar Police Station, Chaibasa with these allegations that while she was posted as officer-in-charge of Mahila Police Station, Sadar, Chaibasa, on 25.02.2022, at 09:06 she received a phone call from the mobile No.9341620493 on her mobile No.8340715873 while she was at her residential quarter of Police Center, Chaibasa. After having received phone call, she asked the name and address of caller, he immediately requested her to make video call and also asked to pick up the same. She again asked the name and address of that person but he did not tell the same and disconnected the phone call. He again made the phone call over her mobile phone, on which, she told him her name and designation and also directed not to call further, on which, he behaved her in obscene language. She also made several efforts to make him understand, but he hurled filthy abuse, criminally intimidated her and threatened to outrage her modesty. He said to her that no one can do worst to him and whatever she to do, she could do. She also made several efforts to make him understand, but he hurled filthy abuse, criminally intimidated her and threatened to outrage her modesty. He said to her that no one can do worst to him and whatever she to do, she could do. When she saw the call details of her mobile, she found that the person had given a missed call on 21.09.2021 and a call for four seconds on 24.09.2021. The bearer of the said mobile No.9341620493 had been continuously calling over her mobile phone, for the same, she was mentally disturbed. On this written information along with the call history details, which was annexed with the FIR, Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No.0024 of 2022 was registered under Sections 354, 354-A, 354D, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the bearer of mobile No.9341620493. 3. The Investigating Officer after having concluded the investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused Sarfaraz Alam under Sections 354, 354-A, 354-D, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Chaibasa. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadar Chaibasa took cognizance on the charge-sheet and committed the case for trial. 4. The learned trial Court framed the charge against the accused Sarfaraz Alam under Sections 354, 354-A, 354-D, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code the same was read over and explained to him, he denied the charge and claimed to face the trial. 5. On behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused in oral evidence altogether five witnesses have been examined i.e. P.W.-1, Abhishek Kumar; P.W.-2, Satyam Kumar; P.W.-3, Minu Kumari (informant); P.W.-4, Someshwar Kumar Singh and; P.W.-5, Dinesh Kumar Mandal and in documentary evidence the prosecution has filed Exhibit-1/P/PW-3, Typed report of informant; Mark-‘X’/PW-3, Call details of mobile No.9341620493 of accused; Exhibit-P-1/PW-5, Endorsement on typed written report to register FIR; Exhibit P1/2/PW-5, Signature of Officer-in-charge Niranjan Tiwary on formal FIR; Exhibit-P/2/PW-5, CDR of the said alleged offending mobile no.9341620493 and his alternate mobile no.9504588796 which is in 43 pages; Exhibit-P-3/PW-5, Memo of arrest; Exhibit-P4/PW-5, Seizure-list of offending mobile and; Exhibit-P-5/PW-5, Confessional statement of accused. 6. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in which, he denied the incriminating circumstances in evidence against him and stated himself to be innocent. No defence evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 7. 6. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in which, he denied the incriminating circumstances in evidence against him and stated himself to be innocent. No defence evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 7. The learned trial Court after hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the accused and learned counsel for the State, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 21.12.2022 holding the accused guilty for the offence under Sections 354-A, 354-D, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as stated hereinabove. 8. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 21.12.2022 passed by the learned trial Court, Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2023 was preferred by convict, which was dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide judgment dated 14.02.2023 and also affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court. 9. Aggrieved from the judgments dated 14.02.2023 and 21.12.2022, the instant Criminal Revision has been preferred on behalf of the revisionist/ convict/ petitioner on the ground that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, which was affirmed by the learned appellate Court is based on perverse finding. Both the learned Court below have not appreciated the evidence on proper perspective. Both the learned Court below have not examined the contents of conversation, which is alleged to have been made between the convict and the victim. It is proved from the evidence on record that the informant did not block the said mobile number rather she had been entertaining the phone call of the petitioner/ convict. The petitioner and the informant both were engaged in very friendly conversation until the informant came to know the religious identity of the convict/petitioner. In view of the above, prayed to allow this Criminal Revision and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by both the learned Court below and acquit the petitioner/ convict from the charges levelled against him. 10. Heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and perused the materials available on record. 11. 10. Heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and perused the materials available on record. 11. For disposal of this Criminal Revision, following point of determination is being framed: “Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, which is affirmed by the learned appellate Court is sustainable in the eyes of law.” 12. In order to decide the legality and propriety of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, which was appreciated by the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court, the same are reproduced hereinbelow: 12.1 P.W.-1, Abhishek Kumar, in his examination-in-chief, says that on 25.02.2022 he was posted as S.I. of police in Muffasil Police Station and on that day, officer-in-charge, Mahila Police Station, Chaibasa told him that one person was teasing her over her mobile phone and had used abusive language. Once in his presence, the victim-informant had also scolded him over the mobile phone. He also saw the call details history of the phone of informant-victim. In cross-examination, this witness says that he is posted in Muffasil Police Station, Chabisa while the informant is posted as officer-in-charge of Mahila Police Station, Chaibasa and both the offices are separate and the jurisdiction of all three police station is different. 12.2 P.W.-2, Satyam Kumar, in his examination-in-chief, says that he was posted as S.I. of police in Muffasil Police Station. The Mahila Police Station, Chaibasa is in the premises of Muffasil Police Station and he used to meet with the officer-in-charge of Mahila Police Station, Chaibasa in the morning and evening. Last year in September, 2021, she had told that one person was teasing her over her mobile phone, after threatening by her, in February, 2022, he made repeated phone call over her mobile phone and ultimately, she lodged the FIR. In cross-examination, this witness says that he is posted in Muffasil Police Station, while the informant is posted in Mahila Police Station, Sadar Chaibasa. Both the offices of police station are different. One more police station is at Chaibasa i.e. Sadar Police Station and the jurisdiction of all three police stations are separate. The informant had told him in regard to the occurrence in the Muffasil Police Station. Both the offices of police station are different. One more police station is at Chaibasa i.e. Sadar Police Station and the jurisdiction of all three police stations are separate. The informant had told him in regard to the occurrence in the Muffasil Police Station. 12.3 P.W.-3, Meenu Kumari, who is the informant-victim, in her examination-in-chief, says that on 25.02.2022 at 09:06 of morning, she was at her residential quarter of Police Center, Chaibasa. One unknown person made the phone call from the mobile No.9341620493 on her mobile No.8340715873. After having picked up the phone call, she asked him his name and address, but he immediately asked her to make video call over her mobile phone and attend the same. She again asked the name and address of that person but when he did not reply she disconnected the phone. Thereafter, he continued to make the phone call over her mobile phone. When she told her name and designation and directed not to call again, he hurled filthy abuse and threatened to outrage her modesty. He also said to her that do whatever she can do against him. After the call details, it came to know that it was this very person, who had earlier made missed call on 21.09.2021 and phone call for four seconds on 24.09.2022. He had been continuously teasing her and threatening to outrage her modesty. On account of the same, she was mentally disturbed and, in regard to the same occurrence, she gave written information with the call details of the accused with the police station concerned, which is signed by her and marked as Exhibit-P/1/PW-3, which is in six pages which is marked as Exhibit-X/PW-3. When she checked in true caller of Mobile No.9341620493, it is mentioned as “please inform me” in place of the name of bearer of mobile number. During investigation, the bearer of the said mobile number was identified as Md. Sarfaraz Alam, resident of Nawada, Bihar. In cross-examination, this witness says that whatever obscene language he has used over her mobile phone, she has not mentioned the same in the written information. She sometimes rejected his phone call but never blocked his mobile number. 12.4 P.W.-4, Someshwar Kumar Singh, in his examination-in-chief, says that on 25.02.2022, the informant-victim came to Sadar Police Station and told to Mr. She sometimes rejected his phone call but never blocked his mobile number. 12.4 P.W.-4, Someshwar Kumar Singh, in his examination-in-chief, says that on 25.02.2022, the informant-victim came to Sadar Police Station and told to Mr. Niranjan Tiwary, officer-in-charge of Sadar Police Station, Chaibasa that one boy was making phone call over her mobile phone, at that time, he was standing there. She stated that the boy has also used abusive language while calling over her mobile phone. In cross-examination, this witness says that he has given his statement, which was heard by him from the victim-informant. 12.5 P.W.-5, Dinesh Kumar Mandal, who is the Investigating Officer of this case, in his examination-in-chief, says that on 25.02.2022 he was posted as S.I. of police in Chaibasa Sadar Police Station, on that day, the investigation of Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No.24 of 2022 was handed over to him. After having taken over the investigation of the said case, he recorded the restatement of the informant-victim, thereafter, he recorded the statement of P.W.-1, Abhishek Kumar, who has supported the prosecution story. Thereafter, he inspected the place of occurrence, which is a Government Quarter of Police Centre, Chaibasa, wherein the informant received the phone call over her mobile phone from the Mobile No.9341620493. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of witnesses P.W.-2, Satyam Kumar and P.W.-4, Someshwar Kumar Singh, who have supported the prosecution story. He also gave an application to the confidential branch of office of the Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa for availability of CDR, tower location and CAF of the mobile number of the accused. On 03.03.2022, he received the CDR, tower location and CAF for the period from 01.02.2022 till 27.02.2022 from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa vide memo No.217/Technical Cell bearing signature of Rajnish Prasad, In-charge, Technical Cell, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. The bearer of offending mobile number was Md. Sarfaraz Alam, whose alternate mobile No. 9504588796 and the CDR of the offending mobile number was in 43 pages. The bearer of the mobile number was Md. Sarfaraz Alam, son of Md. Moinuddin, Sakin Gondapur Police Station, District Nawada, Bihar. On 28.04.2022, he reached to the house of the accused and arrested him. His arrest memo is marked as P/3/PW-5. Sarfaraz Alam, whose alternate mobile No. 9504588796 and the CDR of the offending mobile number was in 43 pages. The bearer of the mobile number was Md. Sarfaraz Alam, son of Md. Moinuddin, Sakin Gondapur Police Station, District Nawada, Bihar. On 28.04.2022, he reached to the house of the accused and arrested him. His arrest memo is marked as P/3/PW-5. He also made search to the house of accused and recovered a without cover mobile phone of Micromax Company, in which, the SIM of Jio company i.e. 9341620493 was found and the recovered mobile was seized and the seizure-memo of the same was prepared, on which, Home-Guard of Akbarpur Police Station Ramnaresh Singh and Umesh Prasad Singh have put their signature, which is marked as Exhibit-P/4/PW-5. One copy of seizure-memo was also handed over to Md. Sarfaraz Alam. Thereafter, he has taken on transit remand to Md. Sarfaraz Alam to the Sadar Police Station, Chaibasa and recorded his confessional statement, which is marked as Exhibit-P/5/PW-5. Thereafter, he filed the charge-sheet against the accused with the Court concerned. In cross-examination, this witness says that he did not get recorded the statement of accused under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Court below. He has not verified the IMEI number of the seized mobile. He has not given identity under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act in regard to CDR. He did not seize the mobile phone and SIM of the victim. The mobile phone and SIM of the accused were not sent to the forensic expert. During investigation, he did not obtain CDR of the mobile phone of the victim. There is no any independent witness of seized mobile, which was seized under the jurisdiction of Akbarpur Police Station from the house of the accused. 13. Before analyzing the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, it would be pertinent to give the statutory provisions of law, which is reproduced hereinbelow: 13.1 Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under: Section 65B. Admissibility of electronic records. 13. Before analyzing the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, it would be pertinent to give the statutory provisions of law, which is reproduced hereinbelow: 13.1 Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under: Section 65B. Admissibility of electronic records. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible. (2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:-- (a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer; (b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities; (c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and (d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities. (3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether-- (a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or (b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or (c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or (d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly. (4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say, -- (a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced; (b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer; (c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this subsection it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it. (5) For the purposes of this section, (a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment; -- (b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities; (c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment. Explanation. --For the purposes of this section any reference to information being derived from other information shall be a reference to its being derived therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other process.] 14. From the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, which was affirmed by the learned appellate Court, it is found that the conviction of the petitioner/ convict is based on the sole testimony of the victim and the same is corroborated with the statement of other prosecution witnesses, who are the police personnel. The testimony of the victim herself is also based on the electronic evidence as the offence was committed over the mobile phone of the victim by the offending mobile phone of the petitioner/convict. P.W.-3, Meenu Kumari, the victim has thoroughly corroborated the prosecution story in her statement before the learned trial Court and the testimony of P.W.3, the victim is also corroborated with the statement of P.W.-1, Abhishek Kumar; P.W.-2, Satyam Kumar and; P.W.-4, Someshwar Kumar Singh. All these witnesses have stated that in their presence the victim has told in regard to the phone call that the petitioner/convict had been teasing her over the mobile phone by making video call, had also hurled filthy abuse and threatened to outrage her modesty by using obscene language. 15. All these witnesses have stated that in their presence the victim has told in regard to the phone call that the petitioner/convict had been teasing her over the mobile phone by making video call, had also hurled filthy abuse and threatened to outrage her modesty by using obscene language. 15. P.W.-1, Abhishek Kumar; P.W.-2, Satyam Kumar and; P.W.-4, Someshwar Kumar Singh have come to know in regard to the occurrence from P.W.-3, the victim herself though the testimony of all three witnesses is hearsay; yet the same become admissible because the victim was also examined as P.W.-3 and what P.W.-3 has stated in her testimony, the same has been corroborated by these three witnesses. 16. In the case in hand, though the testimony of P.W.-3, the victim; P.W.-1, Abhishek Kumar; P.W.-2, Satyam Kumar and P.W.-4, Someshwar Kumar Singh is found in consonance of their statement given to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same is also corroborated by the testimony of P.W.-5, Dinesh Kumar Mandal, Investigating Officer; but P.W.-5, Dinesh Kumar Mandal, Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination, has admitted that he did not receive any certificate in regard to the CDR details under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He also admitted that he did not send the offending mobile phone and SIM to any forensic expert. Even the offending mobile phone of the petitioner/convict, which was seized by the Investigating Officer, the same was not produced during his examination before the court below and the same was not also proved as material exhibit. 17. The prosecution case is based on electronic evidence as the offence was committed by the petitioner/convict over the mobile phone by making mobile phone call over the mobile phone of the victim. Admittedly, the Investigating Officer has neither taken in his possession the mobile phone of the victim nor obtained the CDR details of the mobile phone of the victim as well. Since the whole occurrence is based on the electronic evidence, the admissibility of the same can be only if the certificate under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act is adduced. Since the whole occurrence is based on the electronic evidence, the admissibility of the same can be only if the certificate under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act is adduced. Admittedly, P.W.-5, the Investigating Officer has not obtained any certificate under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in regard to the CDR details of the said offending mobile phone of the petitioner/convict, as such, the same becomes fatal to the prosecution case. 18. There is no audio recording of any phone call made by the petitioner/convict over the mobile phone of the victim what the victim had stated in regard to the occurrence, same being based on electronic evidence, cannot be admissible in evidence without the certificate under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act. 19. The need for production of the certificate under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would arise only when the electronic record concerned is sought to be produced in evidence at the trial. It is at the stage of trial that the necessity of the production of the certificate would arise. During trial as admitted by the Investigating Officer, no certificate was received under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act in regard to CDR details of the offending mobile phone. 19.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harpal Singh @ Chhota Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 734 held that the electronic evidence in nature of a secondary evidence cannot be admitted unless the requirement of Section 65-B are satisfied. In the present case, the evidence of the incriminating call details (relating to the case of conspiracy to kidnap for ransom) were showed to be proved by the evidence of P.W.-24, P.W.-25, P.W.-26 and P.W.-27 on the basis of the printed copy of computer generated call details but the prosecution failed to adduce the certificate relatable thereto as required under Section 65B(4) said call details held inadmissible. Paragraph Nos.56 and 57 of the judgment read as under: “56. Paragraph Nos.56 and 57 of the judgment read as under: “56. Qua the admissibility of the call details, it is a matter of record that though PWs 24, 25, 26 and 27 have endeavoured to prove on the basis of the printed copy of the computer generated call details kept in usual ordinary course of business and stored in a hard disc of the company server, to co-relate the calls made from and to the cellphones involved including those, amongst others recovered from the accused persons, the prosecution has failed to adduce a certificate relatable thereto as required under Section 65-B(4) of the Act. Though the High Court, in its impugned judgment, while dwelling on this aspect, has dismissed the plea of inadmissibility of such call details by observing that all the stipulations contained under Section 65 of the Act had been complied with, in the teeth of the decision of this Court in Anvar P.V. [Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 27 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 24 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 108] ordaining an inflexible adherence to the enjoinments of Sections 65-B(2) and (4) of the Act, we are unable to sustain this finding. As apparently the prosecution has relied upon the secondary evidence in the form of printed copy of the call details, even assuming that the mandate of Section 65-B(2) had been complied with, in the absence of a certificate under Section 65-B(4), the same has to be held inadmissible in evidence. 57. This Court in Anvar P.V. [Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 27 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 24 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 108] has held in no uncertain terms that the evidence relating to electronic record being a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Act would have to yield thereto. It has been propounded that any electric record in the form of secondary evidence cannot be admitted in evidence unless the requirements of Section 65-B are satisfied. This conclusion of ours is inevitable in view of the exposition of law pertaining to Sections 65-A and 65-B of the Act as above. 19.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smriti Madan Kansagra Vs. This conclusion of ours is inevitable in view of the exposition of law pertaining to Sections 65-A and 65-B of the Act as above. 19.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smriti Madan Kansagra Vs. Perry Kansagra, reported in (2021) 12 SCC 289 held that the certificate under Section 65B must meet the requirements that the messages allegedly forwarded from the mobile phone of the defendant to the mobile phone of the plaintiff and thereafter to the e-mail ID of the plaintiff, proof of such message; and necessity of certifying source of the messages allegedly received on the mobile phone of the defendant. Merely, stating that the contents of the e-mail placed on the record was the same as contents of the e-mail in the inbox. This certificate does not certify the source of the messages allegedly received on the mobile phone, wherefrom the message had been forwarded to the e-mail ID. In absence of the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act with respect of source of same cannot be accepted as being genuine or authentic. Paragraph No.21 of the judgment reads as under: “21. The allegation of marital infidelity made by Smriti as a ground to refuse custody to Perry, has been seriously disputed by him. The allegation is based on certain messages which Smriti submits that she stumbled upon, when Perry was visiting India in April 2012. She states that she found Perry busy sending messages from his Blackberry. When she happened to read these messages, she found that Perry had received certain romantic messages from a woman named Sonia from Mozambique. She submits that she forwarded the messages to her own email address, which were downloaded and filed before the Family Court in the guardianship proceedings.” 20. In view of the analysis of the prosecution evidence as stated hereinabove, the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, which was affirmed by the learned appellate Court bears illegality and infirmity, the same is based on perverse finding, as such, needs interference. 21. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 21.12.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa, which was affirmed by the learned appellate Court vide judgment dated 14.02.2023 are hereby set aside. The petitioner is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 22. 21. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 21.12.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa, which was affirmed by the learned appellate Court vide judgment dated 14.02.2023 are hereby set aside. The petitioner is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 22. The petitioner is on bail, his bail bond is cancelled and the sureties are discharged from his liability. 23. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned Court below along with a copy of this judgment.