Advocate Lalit Bhati, representing the accused, questioned whether the SMSes in the inbox folder of the complainant’s phone could be termed original, as no certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act was brought on record by the prosecution.
It was further submitted that he committed the offence at the age of 27 years and was now 41 years of age. During the intervening time, he did not commit any other offence and was a reformed man having shown remorse for his acts, the counsel argued.
Additional Public Prosecutor AT Ansari, on the other hand, urged the Court to show no leniency for it was an “extraordinary case” and the victim was none other than a judge.
The Court subsequently observed that there was enough digital evidence and rejected the defence counsel’s claims.
“The terror created by convict had certainly disturbed her peace of mind and even the tempo of doing her official duties,” it stated.
Source: Barandbench
