Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16) produced at the trial.

On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the prosecution that the Nodal Officer (PW11), in his evidence, has stated that the print outs were generated directly from the computers of the Company and provided to the prosecution on a request made in writing in this regard by the I.O. Every page of those Exts. bear seal of the Company and at the last page of each document it is properly authenticated/attested by the Nodal Officer himself under his signature. It is not the case those CDR/ tower location charts etc. were obtained from a different system where they were kept/stored after obtaining the details/print outs thereof from the hard disc of the computer where such details are recorded. It was also argued that it is not a case of presentation of secondary evidence. Reliance placed on Anvar P.V.(supra) is inappropriate. On a consideration of the submissions made by the parties and after perusing the Exts., in the light of the evidence of the I.O. (PW-16) and the Nodal Officer of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.928 of 2014 dt.06-03-2017 Company (PW11), we do not entertain any scintilla of doubt that they have not properly been proved and brought on record. These Exts. comply with the procedure prescribed under Section 65 -B of the Act which in itself is a complete Code. It may be pointed out here that Ext. 16 is the call details of the mobile of the appellant which was provided to the I.O. along with unsigned statement of the appellant through his lawyer Shri M.K.Rai. In course of examination of the I.O. the said CDR has been marked as Ext. 16 without any objection. There is not much substance in the contention of the appellant.

(24) The submissions made at Bar on behalf of the appellant is that the victim was being tortured by her parents. The defence has proceeded on the theory that as a result of this threat to her life at the hands of the parents she committed suicide. The prosecution case was given a turn only after a letter written by the victim and addressed to the Chief Justice of Bihar came to fore. Exhibit I is the letter which was written by the victim. It is undated. In the letter the victim had expressed apprehension of danger to her life at the hands of her parents. Exhibit-H is the envelop in which the said letter was mailed. It bears the seal of the GPO, Patna dated Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.928 of 2014 dt.06-03-2017 01.12.2007. Before we proceed to examine the relevancy and the legal effect of this letter, we may notice, that the victim prior thereto never ever filed any complaint before the police authority about such torture on her. She was student of the Dental surgery. She had courage to leave the home and go to the Kolkata on her own volition. There is nothing on record to show that any such application or complaint against torture on her at the hands of her family members was ever lodged with any authority. This is the solitary letter which appears to have been dropped either on 30.11.2007 or 01.12.2007. The victim was mad in love. She had earlier left the home and went to Kolkata in the middle of September 2007. If we believe the evidence of the father (PW14) and other relatives, she was continuously in touch with the appellant. The father has also deposed that she always used to talk to the appellant on her mobile phone and base phone. It seems the appellant had full emotional control over her. If the victim was angry with the behavior of her family members and was fearing torture on her she could have left the house even in presence of her father. Curiously enough, she chose a date for leaving the house at night with the appellant on the day when the sole adult male member (PW14) was not in the home as he had gone to Deoghar in connection with worship. The another male member of the family is 10-12 years old younger brother of the victim. The appellant was evading arrest and surrendered in the Court in spite of the I.O.(PW.16) having made frantic efforts. From paragraph no. 37 of the PW-16, we find that on Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.928 of 2014 dt.06-03-2017 02.01.2008 he visited the house of the appellant in Patna where an advocate was present who handed over the unsigned typed statement of the appellant which, however, bears initial of the advocate present there on each page thereof. This was given to the I.O. under the forwarding letter of the advocate dated 02.01.2008 (Ext. 16). We have, therefore, perused his reply. The appellant, in his printed reply, had stated that on 30.11.2007 at about 10 PM he received a call from PW-5 about the victim fleeing away from her house. I was thoroughly perturbed and started calling umpteen times on her mobile phone. Thereafter he informed his father in Patna at about 11.15 PM on 30.11.2007. He sent a text message on the mobile of the victim to talk to him. Thereafter he received a call from Sonu which he disconnected and he again called her. We have already noticed above from the electronic evidence produced (Ext.4) that no phone call was made by the appellant to the victim on 01.12.2007 after 00.15.03 hours. In response to a Court question at para 116 of PW-16 he has stated that he personally verified from the message box of the cell/mobile phone of the victim (Sonu) wherein only one text message was received on 01.12.2007 at 00.54 hours which reads as under:

(27) The appellant has taken a plea of alibi also. In Ext. 16 (unsigned statement of appellant) he has stated that he had gone to Delhi on 10.11.2007 and since then he was there. In the night of 30.11.2007, a small party was organized at his residence at Dwarka in Delhi to celebrate the birth of his niece which had taken place on 22.11.2007. In support of this contention 6 affidavits (Ext. 19 to 19/E) have been placed for consideration. From the evidence of PW-16 and documents on record, it appears that the I.O. had visited Delhi at the place of full brother of the appellant on 2.1.2008 in connection with investigation, where the affidavits (Ext. 19 to 19E) were handed over to him. These affidavits are alleged to be of those persons who being close friends and relatives had attended the party in the night of 30.11.2007. On perusal of these affidavits we find that they have stated that the appellant was seen in the said party on 30.11.2007 at his house in Delhi. The contention of appellant is that these affidavits which have been produced by prosecution are admissible under Section 294 Cr. P.C. and they also constitute evidence under Section Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.928 of 2014 dt.06-03-2017 58 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution has admitted the said affidavits and they did not wish to cross-examine the said witnesses.