Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

32. The accused is already acquitted for the commission of an offence punishable under the provisions of the Act of 2012, and therefore, the testimony of PW 7 / Headmaster for proving the age of the victim is not necessary to be dealt with, as there is no challenge by the prosecution to the acquittal awarded to the appellant / accused.

33. At this stage it is necessary to mention here that the video clip in question is tried to be proved by the prosecution by taking recourse to the evidence of PW 6 / Gajendra Bhutekar, who was attached to the concerned 907-APEAL-955-25.odt police station since 2018 and had taken training in I-bike course, which was in respect of collecting digital evidence, electronic evidence and collecting samples. He stated that he was trained to copy electronic evidence and to obtain its hash value. On 12th July 2023, witness Deepak Jadhav produced the Redmi mobile, which contained a video clip concerning the offence, and it was seen by PW 6. Then he attached the cell phone to his laptop, played the video on the laptop and watched it, copied the video clip onto a DVD, also obtained the hash DVD value of the Karen's hasher V2.3.1 software, and. It was 50 seconds long. He had handed over the DVD to the investigating officer, which was seized in the presence of the panchas. He also issued a certificate under section 65-B of the Evidence Act, on which he affixed his signature, and it is proved below as Exhibit P-1/PW-6. He stated that he could identify the DVD if shown. The DVD was then played, and he identified the video clip.