Electronic call recordings corroborated by device data and CDRs can support conviction without voice comparison.

The appellant was prosecuted for repeatedly raping PW1, extorting money from her, and criminally intimidating her by threatening to circulate her private photographs and harm her family.

The parties became acquainted through a matrimonial website in 2015 and subsequently maintained a long-distance relationship.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant obtained private photographs from PW1 and used them to demand money and sexual compliance.

PW1 alleged that the appellant raped her during his stay at Hotel Radisson Blu, Paschim Vihar, from 23–25 January 2017 and again during a later visit to Delhi; the High Court treated the latter date as 29 August 2017, based on the hotel registration record.

PW1 lodged the FIR on 18 December 2017 after calling the police to the hotel, where the appellant was apprehended.

The prosecution relied on PW1’s testimony, her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, medical evidence showing a torn hymen and blade-cut injuries on her thighs, hotel records, call-detail records, and audio-video material extracted by the FSL from the parties’ mobile devices.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 376(2)(n), 384 and 506 Part II IPC and imposed concurrent sentences of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment, 2 years’ rigorous imprisonment, and 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment respectively, along with fines and default sentences.

The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence under Section 415 BNSS.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant repeatedly committed rape punishable under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, despite the alleged inconsistencies in PW1’s account and the absence of direct documentary evidence showing her entry into the hotel room?

Whether the electronic evidence, including call recordings, transcripts, mobile-phone data and call-detail records, was sufficiently authenticated and admissible despite the absence of voice samples, voice-comparison examination and a Section 65B certificate?

Whether the prosecution established the ingredients of extortion under Sections 383–384 IPC and criminal intimidation under Section 506 Part II IPC?

Whether the alleged omissions in the PCR call, the appellant’s defence of false implication, and the alleged demand for money by PW1’s family created a reasonable doubt warranting interference with the conviction?

The Court applied Section 375 IPC, requiring proof of the acts constituting rape, and Section 376(2)(n) IPC, which penalises rape committed repeatedly.

It applied Sections 383–384 IPC, under which extortion requires intentional putting of a person in fear of injury, dishonest inducement to deliver property, and actual delivery pursuant to that inducement.

Section 506 Part II IPC was applied to threats intended to cause alarm or compel the victim to act or refrain from acting.

The Court held that when primary electronic evidence is produced from seized devices, a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act is unnecessary; the absence of voice samples is not fatal where the recordings are otherwise corroborated by device data, call-detail records, subscriber records, timings and surrounding evidence.

It distinguished Rahul @ Bhupinder Verma v. State because PW1 specifically alleged rape and the medical evidence corroborated her account.

It distinguished Nitin B. Nikhare v. State of Maharashtra because the case was not based merely on consensual sexual relations following an unfulfilled promise to marry.

It distinguished Anil Markende v. State of Chhattisgarh because, unlike that case, the recordings here were extracted by the FSL from seized devices and were corroborated by other evidence.

Non-compliance with the hearing contemplated by Section 232 Cr.P.C. does not automatically vitiate proceedings absent demonstrated prejudice.

The Court found PW1’s account substantially consistent across the FIR, Section 164 statement and trial testimony.

Her inability to recall the hotel room number or the precise month of the later incident was not treated as material, particularly because the appellant admitted his stay in Delhi in January 2017 and hotel records established his visit on 29 August 2017; the Court held that PW1 may have mistaken 29 August for 29 September.

The omission of rape and extortion from the emergency PCR call was not fatal because a PCR call is ordinarily made to obtain immediate assistance and need not contain a complete account of the offence.

The allegation of rape was supported by PW1’s specific testimony, the medical finding of a torn hymen and blade injuries consistent with her account of being forced to injure herself, and the electronic material recovered from the seized devices.

The Court rejected the challenge to the recordings because the mobile numbers were proved to belong to the appellant, the recordings were extracted by the FSL, their timings corresponded with the CDRs, and the appellant did not identify any specific mismatch, fabrication or compromise in the chain of custody.

The threats to circulate PW1’s nude photographs, coupled with demands for money and sexual compliance, established fear of injury and dishonest inducement.

Although the bank documents did not conclusively identify the recipient account, PW1’s testimony was corroborated by the audio and video material and was sufficient to prove extortion.

The same threats, including threats to rape PW1 through friends and harm her family, established criminal intimidation under Section 506 Part II IPC.

The appellant’s allegation that PW1’s family demanded money was unsupported: the alleged CD containing the conversation was never produced, and the appellant’s accounts varied between a demand of ₹5 lakh and ₹30 lakh.

The conviction and concurrent sentences imposed by the trial court were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed as meritless.

Pending applications, if any, were ordered to stand closed.