The High Court of Delhi, presided over by Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, has dismissed a criminal appeal challenging the conviction and 10-year sentence of a man found guilty of repeatedly raping, extorting, and criminally intimidating a woman by blackmailing her with private photographs. Affirming the trial court’s findings, the High Court ruled that the absence of a voice sample examination does not weaken the prosecution’s case when forensic data from seized devices matches Call Detail Records (CDRs), and clarified that a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is unnecessary when primary electronic data from original devices is placed before the court.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint lodged on December 18, 2017, at Mianwali Nagar Police Station by the prosecutrix (PW1). According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix and the appellant, Satbir Singh Ratti, came in contact in June 2015 through the matrimonial website “simplymarry.com” and entered into a long-distance relationship. During this period, the prosecutrix shared intimate photographs with the appellant.
When she later attempted to end the relationship due to his abusive and suspicious conduct, the appellant allegedly blackmailed her, threatening to circulate her private photographs among her family members and friends. Under this threat, he extorted money from her—amounting to approximately ₹5,00,000 in cash and bank transfers—and subjected her to severe physical and psychological abuse via WhatsApp video calls. Furthermore, he coerced her into visiting Hotel Radisson Blu in Paschim Vihar, Delhi, between January 23, 2017, and January 25, 2017, where he repeatedly raped her. On December 18, 2017, when the appellant visited the hotel again and summoned her, the prosecutrix alerted the police with her family, leading to his arrest.
On November 29, 2024, the Additional Sessions Judge (SC-RC), West District, Delhi, convicted the appellant under Sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape on the same woman), 384 (extortion), and Part II of Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). On March 24, 2025, he was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹3,13,595 for rape, two years for extortion, and five years for criminal intimidation, with sentences to run concurrently. Aggrieved, the convict approached the High Court under Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the appellant argued that the rape allegations were an afterthought, noting that the initial Police Control Room (PCR) call mentioned only blackmail, not rape or extortion. It was submitted that the prosecutrix failed to remember specific details during cross-examination, such as the hotel room number or floor, and gave conflicting testimony regarding the date of a second alleged incident in September 2017.
The defense contended that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredient of penetration under Section 375 IPC, citing the High Court’s ruling in Rahul @ Bhupinder Verma vs. State (NCT of Delhi). They also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nitin B. Nikhare vs. The State of Maharashtra to argue that consensual relations following a promise to marry do not constitute rape.
Furthermore, relying on the Chhattisgarh High Court ruling in Anil Markende & Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh, the appellant challenged the call recording transcripts on the grounds that no voice samples had been taken for comparison and no Section 65B Evidence Act certificate had been produced. The defense maintained that the case was fabricated by the prosecutrix, her family, and the Investigating Officer (PW11) to extort money after a loan dispute.
On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State argued that the prosecutrix remained consistent and cogent across her initial statement, her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, and her deposition before the court. The State emphasized that hotels do not maintain visitor registers for guests visiting occupants, and the electronic and forensic evidence retrieved from the seized mobile phones corroborated the victim’s account in full.
The Court’s Analysis and Observations
Examining the record, Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha addressed the procedural and evidentiary challenges raised by the appellant:
- Omission in Initial PCR Call: The Court held that an initial emergency call cannot be scrutinized like a complete statement, observing: “A PCR call made in an emergent situation cannot be expected to contain a detailed narration of the entire incident or all the particulars which may find a place in the FIS/FIR, the 164 statement or the testimony. Therefore, the omission to mention rape or extortion in the PCR call does not make the allegation of rape an afterthought, particularly when PW1 has otherwise remained consistent throughout.”
- Medical Corroboration and Distinguishment of Precedents: The Court rejected the defense’s reliance on Rahul @ Bhupinder Verma, noting that the prosecutrix specifically testified that the appellant raped her, which was corroborated by the Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC) noting blade cut marks on her thighs. The Court also held that Nitin B. Nikhare had no application because the case was not a mere dispute over an unfulfilled promise of marriage following consensual sex.
- Admissibility of Electronic Evidence without Section 65B Certificate: Addressing the challenge to call recordings, the Bench observed that the data had been extracted directly by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) from the seized devices of both parties and correlated with subscriber details and Call Detail Records (CDRs). On the requirement of certification, the Court ruled: “When the primary evidence itself has been produced, there is no necessity for a Certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.”
- Distinction from Anil Markende: The Court noted that in Anil Markende, the recording device remained unauthenticated in the complainant’s private custody for days without scientific extraction. In contrast, the current case involved forensic extraction from seized devices, matching IMEI numbers, and CDR timestamps that aligned precisely with the audio-video files. The Court remarked: “In the absence of any such challenge, there is no reason to interfere with the factual findings of the trial court merely because the voice sample had not been obtained.”
- Failure to Prove False Implication: Regarding the appellant’s claim that the prosecutrix’s family sent a compact disc (CD) demanding money, the Court noted that the appellant never produced the CD in court, nor did he provide credible details. Citing Moidu K. vs. State of Kerala, the Court reviewed procedural aspects and highlighted that once an accused takes the stand as a defense witness (DW1), “it is for him to prove his defence though the burden on him would not be proof beyond reasonable doubt, but on a preponderance of probability. Here such a preponderance of probability has also not been established.”
- Ingredients of Offences Established: The Court concluded that repeated sexual assault under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, extortion under Section 384 IPC (by putting the victim in fear of circulating nude photographs to obtain money), and criminal intimidation under Section 506 Part II IPC were fully established by oral, medical, and electronic evidence.
Decision of the Court
Finding no infirmity or illegality in the trial court’s judgment, the High Court held that the prosecution established all charged offences beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed the appeal.
Case Details
Case Title: Satbir Singh Ratti vs. State NCT of Delhi
Case No.: CRL.A. 1099/2025
Bench: Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha
Date: August 25, 2026
