Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15] So far as the appellant Jeevan is concerned, Shri S. K. Vyas, Senior counsel has submitted that he has also been falsely dragged in this case and the evidence produced against him is concocted and cannot be relied upon. It is also submitted that the recovery of his Belt, Three Gold tops vide Ex.P/62 and vide Ex.P/67, three Mobile sims cannot be relied upon as they have been so seized allegedly in the presence of Pw/26 Ramesh who is a relative of the deceased. Shri Vyas has also submitted that there are material discrepancies in IMEI number allegedly belong to the appellant Jeevan Jatav as there is discrepancy in IMEI number of the seizure memo and the IMEI number of the CDR proved as Ex.P/124, 135 and 167 whereas the seizure memo is Ex.P/67.

19] Shri Kulshsreshtha has also submitted that although the mobile SIM has been seized from the appellant but it has not been marked as Article in evidence and non production of the SIM has vitiated the entire trial, as also non production of SIM from which the call records have been extracted has made the CDR as a relevant in evidence. It is also submitted that as no Airtel SIM or Videocon SIM has been admitted in evidence as Article or produced in the Court, hence, the resultant collection from the CDR from various service providers is inadmissible in evidence due to failure on the part of the prosecution agencies to corroborate the same with the source of electronic device. It is also submitted that so far as deposition of PW/41 Saidutt Bohre, the Nodal Officer of Airtel is concerned, it also suffers from serious infirmities inasmuch as the letter for CDR has been obtained after 5 years of incident and as per the Ex.P/111, the certificate under Section 65- B of the Evidence Act, it does not disclose as to how the CDR was stored for a duration of around one year which is in violation of government directives and even otherwise, the said witness was not authorized representative of Airtel to produce the CDR in the Court. It is also submitted that even according to the deposition of PW/41 Saidutt Bohre, IMEI number of CDR does not match with Ex.P/68 which is the recovery memo. He has also admitted that he has not filed any document to demonstrate that he is posted as Nodal Officer of the Airtel company.

61] PW/39 Manish Kureshi is the alternate Nodal Officer of Vodafone company and has stated that the police had sought the call details and tower location of mobile number 97707-73332 from 16/05/2011 to 25/05/2011 and had taken out the call details from their computer and had sent the same to the S.P. Office, Dhar.
62] PW/40 Omprakash Ahir, a Sub Inspector is also the investigating officer who is the author of the seizure memo prepared under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and had recovery a stone from the spot where the incident took place. He has also got recovered the belt used to strangulate the deceased persons, plastic bottle from which the petrol was sprinkled on the body of the deceased and watches which they removed from the hands of both the deceased persons, a sum of Rs.9500/- recovered from the pocket of the deceased and a Nokia mobile phone which he broke. He has also got recovered the bill regarding black film of the Santro car and the Santro car was also got recovered at his instance from the house of co-accused Shriram. This witness has also got recovered from appellant Jeevan Jatav wherein he informed that he had kept the gold tops, the belt used in the murder and his mobile vide Ex.P/62. He has also recovered from appellant Vikram Singh vide Ex.P/63 the registration number of Santro car, both front and backside which he had kept in his house. He also got recovered his mobile phone. A heavy stone was also got recovered vide Ex.P/64 on which there were blood spots. The spot map was also got prepared with the aid of appellant Rahul, Vikram and Jeevan. The rexine belt, a broken Nokia company mobile, bislery plastic bottle from which the smell of petrol was coming and a bill of Car Decor Indore and two SIMs having IMEI Nos.7910571301799382 and another SIM having IMEI No.910571301819388 were also got recovered from this accused Rahul along with two watches; one of Titan and another of Sonata were recovered through Ex.P/66. Similarly from appellant Vikram Singh, number plate of Santro car bearing No. MP09-CG-0556 both front and back, his mobile having IMEI No.910578505553036 and other mobile having IMEI No.910578505553044 of Airtel and Videocon SIM respectively were also seized vide Ex.P/68. From appellant Jeevan Jatav, a black belt, one pair of golden tops, one mobile having three SIMs and having IMEI No.354238043174117, second SIM having IMEI No.354238043245511 and third SIM having IMEI No.354238043316916 in which Idea SIM was inserted was also recovered from him vide Ex.P.67. Vide Ex.P/69, the Santro car has been seized from the house of appellant Shriram. Vide Ex.P/78, two diaries were also recovered from appellant Rahul which according to him belong to Yashwant. He has been cross examined at length and there are omissions and contradictions in his statement. 63] PW/40 Omprakash Ahir has denied that he has joined hands with the family members of deceased and has admitted that he obtained no evidence that witness Kamal Patidar had given Rs.3 Lakh to the appellant Shriram and witness Satyanarayan had given Rs.2 Lakh. He has admitted that Sunita Bai was arrested on 21.06.2011 of which witness Ramesh has also admitted that in the other memos also, the witness is Ramesh. He has also been suggested that Ramesh happens to be a relative of the complainant party. He has denied that he has taken up the investigation in the case because he was agreed for preparing the forged agreement at the instance of the family members of the deceased. He has admitted that from Nasrullaganj to Indore, distance is about 275 kms and on 06.06.2011, appellants Rahul, Vikram and Jeevan were with him only in Ashta. He has admitted that when he got the case diary for investigation on 06.06.2011, the FIR was already lodged on 02.06.2011 in which the names of all the accused persons were also mentioned. He has admitted that in the enquiry of missing person report Ex.D/2, only two witnesses namely Satish S/o Yashwant whose statement is Ex.D/2 and Jeevan, S/o Bherulal whose statement is Ex.D/17 was taken and it is also mentioned in the case diary that information has been received from some informer but, it is also not mentioned as to regarding which incident this information has been received and has denied that the Sub-Inspector Kharadi had made a false report only on the basis of two witnesses. He has admitted that on

74] So far as the appellant Rahul Mori is concerned, from his possession, a broken mobile of the deceased Yashwant as also two wrist watches have been seized which have been duly identified by the son and the daughter of the deceased persons. From appellant Jeevan, the golden tops of the deceased Gajrabai have been seized which have also been identified by the son and the daughter of the deceased persons. So far as the discrepancies in the IMEI nos. of the mobiles recovered from the appellant Jeevan are concerned, it is found that most of the numbers are common and only last couple of digits are different which may be due to improper noting of the IMEI nos. And lastly from appellant Vikram, the registration plates of Santro car bearing registration No. MP09-CG-0556 have also been seized which clearly establish his connection with the Santro car which was taken by these accused persons from Indore to Nasrullaganj as it is also found that the accused persons were in contact with each other during that time and accused appellant Rahul's mobile location has also been found at Nasrullaganj in the night of 18/05/2011 vide Ex.P/143 coupled with the fact that the toll receipt Ex.P/118 of Mahakal Toll Naka also suggest that the Santro car passed from that Naka on 18/05/2011. Although the defence has also tried to challenge the seizure effected from these accused persons but this Court, in the light of the deposition of the son and daughter of the deceased is of the opinion that their deposition regarding the identification of the articles of their parents cannot be doubted.