Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

38. PW.30 SI Mahesh Kumar, draftsman, Crime Branch deposed that he was called to the spot by the SHO G.L. Mehta. He deposed that he took measurements of the place and prepared the site plan Ex.PW.1/19. The witness was not cross-examined.

INVESTIGATION GETS THE LEAD

39. PW.66 Insp. Mohan Chand Sharma from the Operation Cell, Lodhi Road, deposed that oh 13.12.2001, at about 12 noon, news of the attack on Parliament House had reached and a team under A.C.P. Rajbir Singh, of which he was a member left for Parliament House. He was deputed to investigate about the mobile numbers found written on the slips of paper recovered from the terrorists, as also the mobile phones recovered from the terrorists and the three SIM cards recovered from the purse of terrorist Mohd. He deputed his Sub-Inspector to obtain from the Cell Phone companies, the call details of these SIM cards and telephone numbers. Call details of the mobile phone number 9811489429 written on the I. Cards recovered from the terrorists were also requisitioned by him. By evening he got the details. From the call details he noted that :

The second call was received from the number 0194492610 at Srinagar which was given to the Srinagar Police, Central Agency for keeping watch. On 15.12.2001 at about 10.00 A.M. S.A.R. Gilani entered his house when he was apprehended on being identified by the landlord and at the time of his arrest he was having mobile No. 9810081228 with him which was seized. From the memory of the telephone, the list of dialed numbers was noted and S.A.R. Gilani was questioned about the numbers which were appearing in the chart of phone numbers. S.A.R. Gilani informed him that the mobile No. 9811489429 belongs to Afzal and 9811573506 belongs to Shaukat. The mobile phone was seized and sealed vide, seizure memo Ex.PW-66/5. Personal search of S.A.R. Gilani was taken vide search memo PW-66/6 and thereafter S.A.R. Gilani led the investigating team to the house of Shaukat being No. 1021, 1st Floor, Mukherjee Nagar. Accused No. 4 Afzan Guru opened the door. She was having a mobile phone in her hand which was seized. Its number was 9811573506. On checking the incoming and outgoing numbers from the memory of the phone, it was found that the Srinagar number from which the call was made at about 8.00 P.M. on 14.12.2001 was in the memory of the instrument. The phone along with the SIM card was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW-66/7. Search was conducted in the house of Afzan Guru and the photographs Ex.PW-66/8 & 9 were recovered and seized vide seizure memo Ex,PW-66/10. Another cell phone instrument along with the SIM card were recovered from the house search which was seized vide seizure memo No. Ex.PW-66/11. In the seizure memo's the mobile phone seized from S.A.R. Gilani bearing No. 9810081228, having SIM number 8991100008006812501 & IMEI number 332021532062192 was recorded. Mobile No. 9811573506 recovered from accused No. 4 Afzan Guru the IMEI number was 350177402325262 and SIM number was 10007605017 which were noted. Third mobile phone i.e. the second one recovered from the house of Afzan Guru, its IMEI number 490174612116430 and the sim number 8991100102009283792, were noted. On inquiry from the company which had issued the sim card which was recovered from the house of Afzan Guru it was learnt that it pertained to the mobile No. 9810446375.

67. PW-49 Kamal Kishore Behl deposed that he had a shop at B-10, Model Town, New Delhi from where he sells mobile phone and sim cards. On 4th December, 2001 accused Mohd.Afzal had purchased a Motorola phone from him and a sim card was also purchased by accused. Sim cards were purchased by him from Sanjay Jain who is the distributor of sim cards. Receipt issued by Sanjay Jain pertaining to the sale of sim cards was Ex.P-83. Witness identified Ex.P-28 as the cell phone sold by him (recovered from deceased terrorist Raja). He deposed that on 19.12.2001 the police had come with accused Mohd.Afzal to his shop. Ex.PW-49/1 was the pointing out memo prepared at the shop which bore his signature at point-A. Bill book of purchase of the sim card from Sanjay Jain was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW-49/2 and the relevant receipt was Ex.P-83 which bore his signature at point-A. The witness was not cross-examined by Mohd.Afzal but was cross-examined by amices Neeraj Bansal. In cross-examination he stated that the bill bears signatures of accountant of Sanjay and not Sanjay Jain. He had no receipt evidencing sale of cell phone or sim card to Mohd.Afzal. The sim card sold to Mohd.Afzal was not used by him prior to sale nor was it given to anyone else prior to date of sale. He denied the suggestion that Mohd.Afzal has not visited the shop on 4.12.2001. On being cross-examined by accused Shaukat, witness denied that Shaukat and Mohd.Afzal had not come to the shop for purchase of cell phone.

120. DW-10, A. Farhan, deposed that he is a Telecommunication and Electronic Engineer. SIM cards, IMSI code which corresponds to telephone number are assigned by telephone companies and they are unique. No call could be made from a sealed SIM card and a SIM card being a chip, could be replicated as a chip contain a program which could be re-programmed. It was possible to replicate a sealed SIM card. This, if done, is called cloning a SIM card. IMEI number, which again is a program, could be changed. The program on the mobile phone resulting in IMEI number is a 14 digit number and 15th is called a free digit. In reference to Ex.PW-36/A, pertaining to the call at 11.19.14 hours, where two calls pertaining to the same point stood recorded, witness deposed that it was impossible that two calls were made on one phone by two IMEI numbers simultaneously. To court questions, witness stated that he could not change IMEI numbers. If software was available this could be done. Witness stated that he had changed the IMEI number of Ericsson instruments, which was used to test pre-paid billing system. He stated that with the help of a SIM programmer, cloning/duplicating the SIM card could be done. He stated that to the best of his knowledge, SIM programmers were not available in Delhi or for that matter they were not available anywhere in India. He could not tell the name of any company which gave SIM programmer to its distributors. He stated that first six digits of IMEI number represent the manufacturer or handset, next two digits represent the factory line from which the cellphone has emerged. Next six digits are serial number of handset. Last digit is the spare digit. It was not possible for two hand sets to have same 14 digit numbers. In response to a question pertaining to EX.PW-36/1, he stated that it was the output of billing system and actual calls are handled by operating system support. He could not say as to how there are two entries at the same time. He admitted that it was possible to remove one or add more calls in the business support system but stated that a corresponding change in the record of the calling party would also have to be done.