JUDGMENT : NELSON SAILO, J. Heard Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Since both the appellants have been convicted by a common Judgment & Order, both the appeals have been taken up for disposal. [2.] The appellants being aggrieved with the Judgment & Order dated 26.03.2021 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge – II, Aizawl in S.C No. 41/2017 corresponding to Criminal Trial No. 344/2017 convicted them under Section 4 (1) Part – II read with Section 4 (2)/5(1)(a)(c)(d) Part – I of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITP Act) and thereafter, sentencing them to undergo seven (7) years imprisonment each for conviction under Section 4 (1) Part – II read with Section 4 (2) of the ITP Act and further, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three (3) years for conviction under Section 5 (1)(a)(c)(d) Part – I of the ITP Act with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each with a default clause have filed the instant appeals. According to the learned Trial Court, since it was a single transaction, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. [3.] The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 01.07.2016, a written FIR was received from Inspector R. Chhawnkima to the effect that they came across one Facebook group called “I DUH2 LO POST LA,,,I DUH2 IN LO CHE VE RAWH…” (Post whatever you want, do whatever you feel like) in which one Mapuia Hrahsel posted “ROOM & Girl first class call girl duh tan, 8259887500 ah min lo be dawn nia. Inbox, watsp, phonecall” (For those interested in room and first class call girl, please call, inbox or whatsapp at 8259887500). When enquiry was made, it was found that two (2) persons who are the present appellants both of Nursery Veng, Aizawl were involved in the illegal selling of some girls for the purpose of prostitution thereby living on the earning of prostitution. Hence, Aizawl P.S Case No. 284/2016 under Section 4(1)/4(2/5(2) of the ITP Act was registered and investigated into. Although the case falls under the jurisdiction of SDPO, Aizawl South, the case was initially endorsed to Mr. P.C. Laltanpuia, SDPO, Aizawl North since the SDPO, Aizawl South was on leave. It was later on endorsed to Mr. Hence, Aizawl P.S Case No. 284/2016 under Section 4(1)/4(2/5(2) of the ITP Act was registered and investigated into. Although the case falls under the jurisdiction of SDPO, Aizawl South, the case was initially endorsed to Mr. P.C. Laltanpuia, SDPO, Aizawl North since the SDPO, Aizawl South was on leave. It was later on endorsed to Mr. F. Lalbiakzauva, SDPO, Aizawl South since SDPOs are appointed as Special Police Officers to deal with offence under the ITP Act within their jurisdiction vide Home Department Notification under Memo No. A.60011/2/88-HMP dated 03.01.1997. The previous case I.O P.C Laltanpuia carried out the investigation at the initial stage wherein, he examined the complainant and he also formally arrested the two (2) accused persons/appellants in the presence of witnesses by preparing formal arrest memo. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer seized a black coloured rucksack with Rs. 500/- and a red ladies purse with Rs. 250/- from the alleged victim Lalthakimi. A Carbon Mobile phone was seized from Jacob Lalramtiama and a Mobile phone handset Samsung Galaxy J2 from the accused David Lallawmawma. Further, a Birth Certificate in respect of the victim Lalthakimi was also seized. The alleged victims Lalthakimi and Angie Lalhlimpuii during the investigation made their statements which was recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC. Upon conclusion of the investigation and having found a prima facie case established against the accused persons under Section 4(1)/4(2)/5(1)(a)(c)(d) of the ITP Act. Mr. F. Lalbiakzauva, SDPO, Aizawl South submitted the chargesheet. Charge was then framed against the appellants under the aforesaid sections of law on 23.03.2017 and to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Accordingly, trial was initiated against the appellants and in the process, the prosecution examined 14 prosecution witnesses. The appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC but they did not produce any witness in their defence. Consequently, the learned Trial Court upon hearing the parties convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner as already stated herein above. Aggrieved, they are before this Court. [4.] Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per the deposition of PW-12, only Jacob Lalramtiama has been alleged to be involved in the offence and not David Lallawmawma. He submits that the statements of Lalthakimi recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC is not consistent with her statements/evidence recorded during the trial and therefore, her evidence is unreliable. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per the deposition of PW-12, only Jacob Lalramtiama has been alleged to be involved in the offence and not David Lallawmawma. He submits that the statements of Lalthakimi recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC is not consistent with her statements/evidence recorded during the trial and therefore, her evidence is unreliable. He further submits that although Angie Lalhlimpuii was examined under Section 164 Cr.PC but she was not examined as one of the prosecution witness during the trial and therefore, her evidence cannot be relied upon since the accused persons did not have the opportunity to cross-examine her. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the case of Arjun Biswas Vs. State of Assam, 2004 SCC OnLine Gau 129 and Mulkh Raj Sikka Vs. Delhi Administration (1975) 3 SCC 2 . He submits that in her statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC, Lalthakimi stated that she was made to drink beer at Jacob’s house and she was not conscious. When she woke up, it was already morning and they were at Phunchawng. However, the fact of she having ended in Phunchawng with others have not been mentioned in her evidence during the trial and therefore, her evidence is not reliable and she cannot be termed as a sterling witness. She also has not mentioned any involvement of David Lallawmawma and therefore, the conclusion reached by the learned Trial Court is perverse and particularly in respect of the conviction of David Lallawmawma. [5.] The learned counsel has also submitted that Section 13 of the ITP Act provides for appointment of Special Police Officer to conduct the investigation under the ITP Act. In the present case, the alleged incident happened within the jurisdiction of SDPO, Aizawl South and therefore, the authorization of SDPO, Aizawl North vide order dated 01.07.2016 being contrary to Section 13 of the ITP Act, the investigation done by the SDPO, Aizawl North cannot be accepted. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the case of Delhi Administration Vs. Ram Singh AIR 1962 SC 63 . In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the case of Delhi Administration Vs. Ram Singh AIR 1962 SC 63 . [6.] The learned counsel further submits that Exhibit – P2 are print outs of Facebook and Messenger messages from the Mobile phone of the appellants and the same could not have been relied upon by the learned Trial Court to convict the appellants since a certificate was not prepared and signed by a responsible person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device etc., in terms of Section 65B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act). In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors. (2020) 7 SCC 1 . [7.] The learned counsel further submits that although the alleged victim Lalthakimi was examined as the prosecution witness during the trial apart from her statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC during the investigation but due to discrepancies and inconsistent statements made by her, she cannot be considered to be a sterling witness. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants by relying upon her evidence cannot be accepted and the same should be interfered with by this Court. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the case of Rai Sandeep Alias Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21 . The learned counsel thus submits that under the facts and circumstances, the impugned Judgment & Order convicting the appellants not being sustainable, the same should be set aside and the appellants be set at liberty. [8.] Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that Exhibit - P2 which is the print out of the Facebook and Messenger messages from the Mobile phone of the accused persons were extracted in the presence of the Judicial Magistrate First Class and therefore can be relied upon without insisting upon a certificate under Section 65B (4) of the Evidence Act. She further submits that the appellants in their examination under Section 313 Cr.PC clearly admitted to the fact that they were not having any regular job and therefore, it is obvious that they were making their living from the earnings of prostitution and thereby attracting the provisions of Section 4(1) & (2) of the ITP Act and also Section 5(1) (a)(b)(d) of the same Act. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that it is the duty of an accused person to furnish an explanation in his statements made under Section 313 Cr.PC regarding any incriminating material that has been produced against him. The accused may choose to maintain silence or even remain in complete denial when his statements under Section 313 is being recorded. However, in such an event, the court would be entitled to draw inference including such adverse inference as may be permissible in accordance with law. Therefore, since the appellants have simply denied the allegation without any explanation, an inference can be drawn against them that they are guilty of the offence. In support of her submission, the learned Public Prosecutor relies upon the case of Raj Kumar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2014) 5 SCC 353 . The learned Public Prosecutor submits that having regard to the evidence led by the prosecution, the appellants have been rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court and therefore, the impugned Judgment & Order may not be interfered with by this Court. [9.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. In order to appreciate and find out as to whether the appellants have been rightly convicted by the learned Trial Court, the evidence led during the trial may be examined. [10.] PW-1 is the informant who stated that in his examination-in-chief that during the time of incident, he was posted under the Superintendent of Police, CID (Crime). On 01.07.2016, he submitted a written FIR to the O/C, Aizawl Police Station to the effect that the Superintendent of Police, CID (Crime) came across one Mapuia Hrahsel post on Facebook group regarding the availability of call girls and to avail their service, the contact number was given in the Facebook itself. On 01.07.2016, he submitted a written FIR to the O/C, Aizawl Police Station to the effect that the Superintendent of Police, CID (Crime) came across one Mapuia Hrahsel post on Facebook group regarding the availability of call girls and to avail their service, the contact number was given in the Facebook itself. He was then detailed by the Superintendent of Police, CID (Crime) to enquire into the matter and accordingly, he and ASI Vanlalhriata and two (2) other constables enquired into the case. Upon making the enquiry, they found out that the appellants who were from Nursery Veng, Aizawl were involved in the illegal selling of some girls for the purpose of prostitution and they posted photographs of the girls in the Facebook group and whatsapp group and earned their commissions from selling those girls. He then printed out 21 pages of Facebook and Messenger messages and submitted them along with the FIR. The FIR as well as the printouts of the Facebook messages from the Mobile phone of the accused persons were objected by the defence counsel failure to comply Section 65A of the Evidence Act. [11.] In his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he did not interrogate any alleged call girls before filing of the FIR or saw the accused persons selling the girls. He stated that they did not conduct any rescue operation nor did they rescue any alleged call girls before the FIR was submitted. They visited the rented house of accused no. 2 once but however, there was no one in the house on that day. They did not visit the house of the accused no. 1. He was also not sure whether the documents he sought to submit before the court were documents printed out from Whatsapp, Facebook or SMS. He was present when the printing out of the documents took place but he was not sure whether the printing of the documents took place in their office i.e., CID (Crime) Branch. [12.] PW-2 P.C. Laltanpuii in his examination-in-chief stated that he knows the accused persons present in the court and that he was currently working as SDPO, Aizawl North. At the time of institution of the case, since the SDPO, Aizawl South was on leave, he took up the case being the SDPO, Aizawl North. [12.] PW-2 P.C. Laltanpuii in his examination-in-chief stated that he knows the accused persons present in the court and that he was currently working as SDPO, Aizawl North. At the time of institution of the case, since the SDPO, Aizawl South was on leave, he took up the case being the SDPO, Aizawl North. PW-2 stated that during the investigation, he recorded the statements of the complainant and other witnesses while seizing certain materials and money from the victim and Mobile phones from the accused persons. Later on, he handed over the case to the O/C, Aizawl Police Station when the SDPO, Aizawl South resumed his duty after he was on leave. PW-2 exhibited the seizure memos and seizures that he made as well as the signature. [13.] In his cross-examination, PW-2 stated that he conducted the investigation for 12 days and his investigation was limited to seizure, arrest, recording of evidence of the victims and accused. He derived his power to investigate into case by virtue of the order dated 29.06.2016 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Lalhuliana. He also stated that casual leave was given to the office which charge he had taken from 01.07.2016 to 05.07.2016. PW-2 stated that the accused persons were not willing to confess their guilt as on 04.07.2016 and therefore, they applied for remand for 48 hrs before the court. Thereafter, further remand was sought for on 06.07.2016 and it was on 08.07.2016 that the accused persons admitted their guilt and therefore it was no longer necessary to have them in judicial custody. PW- 2 further stated that it was solely on the statement made by the taxi driver he recorded the involvement of the accused no. 1 or the accused no. 2 in human trafficking are not found. He did not examine the genuineness of the Birth Certificate that they had seized. [14.] PW-3 is the Dr. V. Lalremruata who examined the accused persons and found that they were medically fit to be kept in custody for 24 hrs. [15.] PW-4 C. Ngurbiakveli examined the alleged victims on 01.07.2016 at around 4:00 pm and found them to be physically and mentally sound and without the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of examination. However, in her cross- examination, she stated that she did not actually know the physical and mental health of the victim. [15.] PW-4 C. Ngurbiakveli examined the alleged victims on 01.07.2016 at around 4:00 pm and found them to be physically and mentally sound and without the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of examination. However, in her cross- examination, she stated that she did not actually know the physical and mental health of the victim. [16.] PW-5 C. Lalremruati stated in her examination-in-chief that during the time of incident, she was posted as Team Member, Childline under the Ministry of Women and Child Development. On 01.07.2016, upon receiving a telephone call from the Women Cell, Aizawl PS, she and Joseph Laltanpuia rushed to the Women Cell, Aizawl P.S and took verbal permission from the CWC to admit Lalthakimi at Aizawl Sheltre Home, ITI. She was also present when the police seized one black leather rucksack and one read lady purse from the possession of Lalthakimi. [17.] PW-6 and PW-7 Melody Lalengmawii and K. Vanlalruata both are seizure witnesses who witnessed seizing of the Mobile phones from the appellants. [18.] PW-8 Lalmuanpuia in his examination-in-chief stated that he is a taxi driver and residing in Bungkawn in a rented house. During 2016, he knew that one girl named Kimkimi hired his taxi three to four times. At one time, he dropped Kimkimi and the other occupant of his taxi in Dawrpui bazaar area on two (2) occasions. On one occasion, the accused Jacob Lalramtiama also boarded his taxi along with Kimkimi but he got down in Khatla while Kimkimi remained in his taxi. In his cross-examination, he stated that he does not know the personal life of Kimkimi and he does not have any reason to suspect Kimkimi to be a prostitute. It was a fact that Kimkimi often contacted him for hiring his taxi. He also stated that although he had said that Mr. Jacob Lalramtiama had boarded his taxi along with Kimkimi but he does not have any specific identification for saying as to whether the person who boarded his taxi was Jacob Lalramtiama or not. [19.] PW-9 and PW-10 David Lalthapuia and Lalbiakchhuana are the seizure witnesses who witnessed that seizure of the Birth Certificate of Lalthakimi. Jacob Lalramtiama had boarded his taxi along with Kimkimi but he does not have any specific identification for saying as to whether the person who boarded his taxi was Jacob Lalramtiama or not. [19.] PW-9 and PW-10 David Lalthapuia and Lalbiakchhuana are the seizure witnesses who witnessed that seizure of the Birth Certificate of Lalthakimi. [20.] PW-11 Remruatfela in his examination-in-chief stated that he was working as a Team Member, Childline, Aizawl and he received the Birth Certificate of Lalthakimi sent by her mother Lalruattluangi from Champhai to Aizawl by as Sumo service and he handed over the same to the police. [21.] PW-12 Lalthakimi, who is said to be one of the alleged victim in her examination-in-chief stated that she knows both the appellants who were before the court. Although she did not remember the exact date and month, during 2016, she was divorced and she firstly lived in a rented house with Malsawmi at Lawipu but later on, she shared a rented house of Mr. Chaka at Tuikual. It was at that time that she fell in love with Mr. Jerry who brought her in the rented house of Mr. Jacob Lalramtiama in Nursery Veng. After spending two (2) nights at Jacob’s place, Mr. Jerry left and she remained living in the rented house of Mr. Jacob Lalramtiama. Thereafter, two (2) girls namely, Hnudikia and Mercy came to the rented house of Jacob Lalramtiama and they said that they were going to Delhi. However, instead of going to Delhi, they remained in the house. As she had health problem, she asked them to lend her some money for medical treatment but they instead told her that they knew the easy way to earn money and invited her to become a call girl. Thereafter, one night, she drank liquor (beer) and she was not conscious. She remember that she was taken out by others and thereafter dropped back to the house of Jacob Lalramtiama by a Pulsar bike, which was red in colour. Mr. Jacob Lalramtiama gave her some money which was either Rs. 2,000/- or Rs. 3,000/-, the exact amount which she could not remember. She also stated that one day she received a phone call and she was asked whether she still was a call girl or not and she immediately hung her phone. Mr. Jacob Lalramtiama gave her some money which was either Rs. 2,000/- or Rs. 3,000/-, the exact amount which she could not remember. She also stated that one day she received a phone call and she was asked whether she still was a call girl or not and she immediately hung her phone. In another time, as far as she could remember, Hundiki and friends told her that they had arranged a man for her but as she used to consume liquor, she could not remember very well about the time. Mr. Jacob Lalramtiama once brought herself and Mercy to Ahimsa hotel and she thought that she was not liked. They left Mercy towards the rented house of Jacob Lalramtiama. Later, one Ms. Puipuii also joined them and she like her. She came to know that the police CID became aware of the nature of their activities and for which, Jacob Lalramtiama scolded her since he thought that she reported the matter to the police. One night, one CID personnel came to their house and he showed her photograph and asked her whether it was her photograph or not. She admitted that it was her photograph and the CID asked her to report to the CID office the next day. She then reported to the CID office and she was brought to Shelter Home at Saron Veng, Aizawl. Since the CID were investigating the case, Jacob Lalramtiama fled away. [22.] PW-12 in her cross-examination stated that after Jacob Lalramtiama fled away, she remained in the rented house for two (2) nights as she was afraid to join her relatives. She stated that after Mr. Jerry had left, she voluntarily remained in the house of Jacob Lalramtiama due to her health problem. She however denied that after she recovered from her health, she voluntarily remained in the rented house of Jacob Lalramtiama. She remained in the rented house even after she could move by herself which was after less than a month. She did not know the source of money from which Jacob Lalramtiama gave her money in one night as she was in a state of intoxication. She also stated that she did not consume liquor excessively but often consume liquor after she was divorced with her husband. She did not know the purpose of their visit to Hotel Ahimsa where they left Mercy in the hotel. She also stated that she did not consume liquor excessively but often consume liquor after she was divorced with her husband. She did not know the purpose of their visit to Hotel Ahimsa where they left Mercy in the hotel. She knew the taxi driver Muanpuia who brought them to Hotel Ahimsa. She knew Muanpuia from before as she was living in Bungkawn earlier and she often used his taxi. She even called for his taxi for going to Ahimsa hotel that night. [23.] PW-13 T. Lalhmachhuana in his examination-in-chief stated that at the relevant time, he was posted as Judicial Magistrate First Class in the District Court, Aizawl and he also took the charge of CJM, Aizawl District. One of the victim Lalthakimi was produced before him on 11.07.2016 by the Members of Child Welfare Committee, Aizawl District for recording her confessional statement in connection with Aizawl P.S Case No. 284/2016 dated 01.07.2016 under Section 4(1)/4(2)/5(2) of the ITP Act. He therefore recorded her judicial statements as per the procedure. On 03.08.2016, one of the victim Angie Lalhlimpuii was again brought before him as endorsed by the CJM, Aizawl for recording her judicial statements. Her statement was accordingly recorded in the prescribed format after observing codal formalities. PW-13 exhibited the statements of Lalthakimi and Angie Lalhlimpuii along with their signature and his signature. [24.] PW-14 F. Lalbiakzauva in his examination-in-chief stated that he knows both the accused persons appearing in the court. On 01.07.2016, a written FIR was received from Inspector R. Lalchhawnkima to the effect that they came across one Facebook group called “I duh2 lo post la, I duh2 in che ve rawh” in which one Mapuia Hrahsel posted “Room and girl first class call duh tan ph – 8259887500 ah min lo be dawn nia. Inbox, whatsapp, phone call”. On enquiry into the matter, they found that the appellants both from Nursery Veng were involved in the illegal selling of some girls for the purpose of prostitution thereby living on their earnings. Accordingly, Aizawl P.S Case No. 284/2016 under Section 4(1)/4(2)/5(2) ITP Act was registered and investigated into. Since he was on leave, the case was endorsed to Sh. P.C. Laltanpuia, SDPO North. Accordingly, Aizawl P.S Case No. 284/2016 under Section 4(1)/4(2)/5(2) ITP Act was registered and investigated into. Since he was on leave, the case was endorsed to Sh. P.C. Laltanpuia, SDPO North. Since SDPOs are appointed as Special Police Officers to deal with offence under the ITP Act within their jurisdiction vide Notification dated 03.01.1997 issued by the Home Department, SDPO North carried out the investigation initially and arrested the accused persons. [25.] PW-14 stated that the previous case I/O examined the complainant and arrested the accused persons in presence of witnesses by preparing formal arrest memos. He thoroughly interrogated the accused persons and Jacob Lalramtiama confessed before him that he started that illegal flesh trade since June 2016 and had sold five (5) girls namely, Kimkimi, Hundiki, Mercy, Puipuii and Irene for the purpose of commercial sex. He also created the Facebook group by using his facebook account ‘Mapuia Hrahsel’ wherein he openly admitted that he could be contacted by anyone who is looking for a girl and he even displayed his phone number as well as the phone number of David Lallawmawma. He even shared the photographs of Kimkimi, Hundiki, Mercy, Puipuii and Irene. He further confessed that he had sold the girls for commercial sex purpose for 12 times and there happen two occasions when the business was foiled by CID personnel. He also stated that his partner David Lallawmawma was apprehended by CID personnel while they were trying to sell Irene at the cemetery of Nursery Veng, Aizawl. David Lallawmawma was interrogated and he confessed of his involvement in the illegal selling of girls for the purpose of prostitution and that he was apprehended by CID personnel in the cemetery of Nursery Veng on the night of 26.06.2016. [26.] The seized Mobile phones of the accused persons were carefully examined and the conversation messages clearly reveal the involvement of the accused persons. The conversation messages were extracted by Mr. H. Lalduhsanga, learned JMFC-II from the Mobile phone belonging to Jacob Lalramtiama, which were found to be correct by the Magistrate. The two (2) victims Lalthakimi and Angie Lalhlimpuii were examined and they both stated that the arrested accused persons had sold them for commercial sex purpose. The judicial statements of both the victims were recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (PW-13). The two (2) victims Lalthakimi and Angie Lalhlimpuii were examined and they both stated that the arrested accused persons had sold them for commercial sex purpose. The judicial statements of both the victims were recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (PW-13). According to PW-14, the investigation therefore clearly revealed that the accused persons lived on the earnings of the victims by acting as a pimp on behalf of the girls, exercising control, direction and influence over their movement and thereby aiding their prostitution. Therefore, both the appellants were found to be prima facie guilty of the charged sections. [27.] PW-14 exhibited the charge sheet, notification authorizing the SDPOs to investigate ITP cases, arrest memos of the appellants and judicial statements of the victims. In his cross-examination, PW-14 stated that his involvement in the investigation was meager due to the casual leave that he had availed. That he came to know the accused persons were caught red-handed by CID personnel from the accused persons, victims and the complainant. Being investigating team except CID personnel, they did not recue any victims. [28.] Before we analyze the evidence led by the prosecution, it may be seen that as per Notification dated 03.01.1997 issued by the Home Department (Exhibit – P13), all Sub-Divisional Police Officers in Mizoram have been appointed as Special Police Officers within their respective jurisdiction to deal with offences under the ITP Act with immediate effect. The jurisdictional SDPO is PW-14 being the SDPO, Aizawl South. However, since he was on leave, the SDPO, Aizawl North was endorsed the investigation at the initial stage. Since both the Aizawl North and Aizawl South SDPOs are of the same rank and authorized to conduct investigation in terms of the Notification dated 03.01.1997 and therefore in absence of anything to the contrary, it cannot be said that the investigation is vitiated for want of an investigation by an authorized person. Therefore, the case of Delhi Administration Vs. Ram Singh (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the appellants is found to be not applicable. Therefore, the case of Delhi Administration Vs. Ram Singh (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the appellants is found to be not applicable. [29.] Now coming to the exhibits more particularly Exhibit P2 which is a 21 pages print out of Facebook and Messenger messages from the mobile phone of the accused persons, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the same was extracted and compared in the presence of a Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aizawl District on 17.08.2016 and therefore are reliable evidence to prosecute the appellants. Section 65B of the Evidence Act provides that 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 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. [30.] Sub-Section (4) of Section 65B further provides that in any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate (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 sub-section, it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it. [31.] In the present case, a certificate as contemplated under Section 65 B (4) of the Evidence Act admittedly has not been prepared and that reliance has solely been placed on the attestation of the Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned. [31.] In the present case, a certificate as contemplated under Section 65 B (4) of the Evidence Act admittedly has not been prepared and that reliance has solely been placed on the attestation of the Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned. The attestation states that the abstract of Facebook and Messenger messages was done in his presence and compared. However, to accept the same as admissible electronic records, the prescription of Section 65 B (4) will have to be complied with and which unfortunately has not been done. It may also be seen that the Judicial Magistrate First Class who had made the attestation has also not been examined. [32.] The Apex Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (supra) in the given facts and circumstances of that case held that production of certificate under Section 65 B (4) of the Evidence Act held that whether primary evidence is not led and original not produced, it would be mandatory to produce the certificate under Section 65 B (4) of the Evidence Act. The Apex Court therefore reiterated that the certificate required under Section 65 B (4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of the evidence by way of electronic record as was correctly held in Anvar P.V Vs. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 . [33.] It may also be seen in the present case that according to PW-1, who is the informant, he printed out 21 pages of Facebook and Messenger messages from the mobile phone of the accused persons but in his cross-examination, he stated that he was not sure whether the documents he sought to submit before the court are documents printed out from Whatsapp, Facebook or SMS. Although he stated that he was personally present when the documents were being printed but again he stated that he was not sure whether the print out of documents took place in their office i.e. CID (Crime) Branch office. Therefore there are clear contradictions in the statements made by PW-1 in his examination-in-chief and in his cross-examination. [34.] Moving on to the evidence of the alleged victims namely, Lalthakimi and Angie Lalhlimpuii. The statements of both the girls were recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC but only Lalthakimi was examined during the trial as one of the prosecution witness. Therefore there are clear contradictions in the statements made by PW-1 in his examination-in-chief and in his cross-examination. [34.] Moving on to the evidence of the alleged victims namely, Lalthakimi and Angie Lalhlimpuii. The statements of both the girls were recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC but only Lalthakimi was examined during the trial as one of the prosecution witness. Although Lalthakimi in her 164 statements mentioned that one night she was made to drink beer at Jacob’s house and she was not conscious, when she woke up it was already morning and they were at Phunchawng. Thereafter, she was dropped back at Jacob’s house. According to the learned counsel for the appellants since she has failed to mention about having landed in Phunchawng during her examination in the trial, her statement is inconsistent. However, the fact remains that non-mentioning of Phunchawng alone may not render her statements to be doubtful since she has also clearly stated that she was dropped back in the house of Jacob Lalramtiama by a red colour Pulsar bike and was given a sum of Rs. 2,000/- or Rs. 3,000/-, which she could not exactly remember. PW-12 had also mentioned the name of David Lallawmawma in her 164 statements but the role played by him has not been clearly mentioned. Further, PW-12 in her evidence during the trial has not named David Lallawmawma to be involved in the case and under the facts and circumstance, it cannot be presumed that David Lallawmawma was indeed involved in the case. [35.] In so far as the Birth Certificate of Lalthakimi is concerned, PW-11 stated that he received the Birth Certificate sent by her mother from Champhai to Aizawl by a sumo service and then handed over the same to the police. In his cross- examination, he stated that since it was an original copy of the Birth Certificate in his opinion, all entries made in the Birth Certificate seemed to be correct. However, the fact remains that the date of birth or the age of Lalthakimi has not been proved in the manner prescribed in the Evidence Act. Merely exhibiting of documents does not account to prove of the same. Therefore, in order to make a conviction under Section 4 (1) Part – II, the fact of the alleged victim Lalthakimi being a minor was required to be proved as per the established procedure. Merely exhibiting of documents does not account to prove of the same. Therefore, in order to make a conviction under Section 4 (1) Part – II, the fact of the alleged victim Lalthakimi being a minor was required to be proved as per the established procedure. However, as already noted, the Birth Certificate being original, the same was believed to be correct according to PW-11. The believe of PW-11 by any means cannot be said to be proof of the Birth Certificate of the victim Lalthakimi that she was a minor. Therefore, the finding for conviction under Section 4(1) Part – II of the ITP Act only appears to be perverse. [36.] PW-8 in his cross-examination stated that in the year 2016, one girl named Kimkimi used to hire his taxi on many occasions and at one time, the accused Jacob Lalramtiama was also on board along with Kimkimi in his taxi. However, in his cross-examination, he stated that he does not have any physical identification to be sure as to whether the person who boarded his taxi was the accused Mr. Jacob Lalramtiama. [37.] In respect of the other alleged victim Angie Lalhlimpuii, although her statements were recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC but she was not examined as a witness during the trial. A Division Bench of this Court in Arjun Biswas (supra) in the given facts and circumstances of that case held that one of the prime requisites for making a statement admissible in evidence by taking recourse to Section 33 of the Evidence Act is that the adversary must have had a right and opportunity to cross-examine the witness, whose statement is sought to be admitted into evidence. During the course of investigation, when the statement of a witness is recorded under Section 164 , Cr.P.C , the accused neither has any right nor is he given opportunity to cross-examine such a witness. For non-fulfillment of this condition precedent alone, it is sufficient to hold that a statement of a witness recorded under Section 164 , Cr.P.C . is not a statement, which can be admitted into evidence at the trial under Section 33 of the Evidence Act. For non-fulfillment of this condition precedent alone, it is sufficient to hold that a statement of a witness recorded under Section 164 , Cr.P.C . is not a statement, which can be admitted into evidence at the trial under Section 33 of the Evidence Act. [38.] In the present case, since there was no opportunity for the appellants to cross-examine Angie Lalhlimpuii and therefore, her statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC alone cannot be admissible for convicting the appellants on the charge framed against them. [39.] The Apex Court in Rai Sandeep Alias Deepu (surpa) in the given facts and circumstances of that case held that a sterling witness should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross- examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. [40.] In the present case, upon appreciating the evidence of PW-12, who is said to be one of the alleged victim, it cannot be said that she qualifies to be a sterling witness so as to rule out any doubt in the manner in which the alleged offence was said to have been committed. [41.] Thus, upon due consideration of the case in its entirety, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the appellant with proof beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment & Order is found to be not sustainable and the same is set aside. [41.] Thus, upon due consideration of the case in its entirety, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the appellant with proof beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment & Order is found to be not sustainable and the same is set aside. The appellants are directed to be released, if not otherwise wanted in connection with any other case. [42.] With the above observations and direction, the appeal stands disposed.