Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. On reading of the rukka, it is apparent that it was a blind murder case. The said fact is accepted by the prosecution as well. There was no indication of the culprits and perpetrators of the said crime. There were/are no eye witnesses also. The statement of PW-3, however, disclosed that he had spoken to the deceased (his father) on 18th May, 2009 at about 10 P.M. PW-3 in his statement before the court has stated that his father was carrying a mobile phone Nokia 2600 (Ex.P-4) of golden colour, which was purchased in the name of his mother in December, 2008 from JD Block, Pitampura. The mobile number of the deceased was stated to be 9873973918. His mobile number was stated to be 987140729. Wife of the deceased and mother of PW-3, Mani appeared as PW-15. She deposed that on 23rd December, 2008, her son had purchased one golden colour mobile phone of Nokia make from Pitampura in her name for Rs.3,000/-. The retail invoice of the said the said mobile phone was proved by PW-15 and marked Exhibit P2. She has deposed that the said phone was used by the deceased Vadivale and on 18th May, 2009, the deceased had taken this phone while going to duty. On her further examination, she identified the cardboard box in which the mobile phone was packed at the time of purchase and the same was marked Exhibit P3. On the cardboard box, the IMEI number of the mobile phone Nokia 2600 was mentioned as 356396026901613. The purchase of the mobile phone by the deceased has been corroborated in the statement of PW-3. He has deposed that he had handed over the bill of the mobile phone in the name of his mother Mani (PW-15) to the police and the same was seized vide seizure memo Exhibit PW-3/F, which was signed by him. The purchase bill was also identified by him and marked Exhibit P2. He stated that on the cardboard box, the IMEI number of the phone was written as 356396026901613. The said mobile phone was sold to him by Gaurav Kochhar (PW-7). PW-7 testified that he was selling mobile phones in the name of H.R. Enterprises at JD-20A, Pitampura. On 23rd December, 2008, he had sold one mobile phone Nokia 2600 S gold bearing IMEI No. 356396026901613 to Mr. Mani (should be Ms. Mani) for Rs.3,000/-. He identified the invoice Exhibit P2, which was signed by his employee Dalbir Singh, whose handwriting and signatures he could identify. This became the starting point of investigation by the police

7. As regards missing of the mobile phone from the scene of crime, the prosecution has placed on record and proved letter dated 20 th May, 2009 written by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sub-Division, Ashok Vihar, Delhi (Exhibit PW-11/C). The said letter was written to SHO Police Station Saraswati Vihar in connection with the FIR in question. The said letter records that one mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 356396026901613 was found missing or taken away by the culprit at the time of murder. Thereafter, the said mobile phone with IMEI No. 356396026901613 was put on surveillance and it was found that the said mobile phone instrument was being used with SIM card bearing No. 9718006863. The first such use with the said SIM No. 9718006863 was reported on 19th May, 2009 at 5.46 A.M. in the early morning soon after the occurrence on or after 10 P.M. in the night of 18th May, 2009. The call details of the numbers called from SIM No. 98718006863 were enclosed along with the said letter and have been marked Exhibit PW-11/A. The said letter and the call details have been proved by SI Rajiv Gulati (PW-11), who at the relevant time was working as a Clerk of R.C. Saini, ACP and the Nodal Officer. PW-11 has deposed that he had handed over the records of call details of IMEI No. 356396026901613 from 1st January, 2009 to 20th May, 2009 to investigating officer Insp. Baljpit Singh (PW-29). He mentioned that SIM No. 9718006863 was found to be in use in the hand set bearing IMEI No. 356396026901613 from 19th May, 2009 at 5.46 A.M. till the time the call details were downloaded. He has deposed that on inquiry it was discovered that the SIM No. 9718006863 was issued in the name of Deva Nand Parshad, son of Kuldeep Parshad, resident of 212, Banjara Wali Gali. There is nothing in the cross-examination to dent or to create any suspicion about the testimony and statement made by SI Rajiv Gulati (PW-11).

20. The last conversation between PW-3 and deceased took place at 10.00 p.m. on 18th September, 2005 and thereafter PW-3 could not reach and talk to the deceased. The first call/SMS received on the said mobile set IMEI No. 356396026901610 with the SIM No. 9718006863 was recorded at 5.46 A.M. on 19th May, 2009. This is within few hours of the call and conversation between PW-3 and the deceased at 10 P.M. on 18th May, 2009. The time gap between the last conversation between PW-3 and deceased and the first call received on the mobile No.98118006863 in the instrument bearing IMEI No. 356396026901610, is hardly 6 to 7 hours. It was also night time. It is difficult, therefore, to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the mobile handset could have changed hands and may have come into possession of the appellant from a third person. At this stage, it is also relevant to note that no such defence/claim was made by the appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The stand taken by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in response to question No. 22 was that he did not know. In response to question No. 29, the appellant stated:-

21. In addition to the call details (Exhibit PW-11/A), the prosecution has also placed on record and proved the call records of telephone No. 9718006863 from 1st March, 2009 to 31st May, 2009 through Ajeet Singh (PW-9) Nodal Officer of Idea Cellular Limited. The said call records were issued along with the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which is Exhibit PW-9/D. The call records are Exhibit PW-9/A. These call details show that the last call recorded on the said telephone number on 24th May, 2009 was at 2.53 P.M. Therefore, the call records (Ex.PW-9/A) corroborates the prosecution version that the appellant was arrested on 24th May, 2009. The time of arrest as mentioned in the arrest memo (Exhibit PW-26/G) is 6.30 P.M. The call records also reveal that earlier mobile phone SIM No. 9718006863 was installed and used in Nokia 1600 handset with IMEI No.356280019820743. Thus, the call details corroborate the fact that the police had been able to recover the two mobile phones from the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the seizure memo of Nokia phone 1600 (Exhibit PW-26/D) was put to the accused for his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. vide question No. 28 but the IMEI number 356280019820743 and the fact that the same IMEI number is mentioned in the seizure memo of Nokia phone 1600 (Exhibit PW-26/D) was not put to the accused. To countenance the said submission, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the seizure memo (Exhibit PW-26/D) was put to the accused. A close examination of question Nos. 26 and 28 show that recovery of the mobile phone Nokia 1600 and the seizure memo (Ex. PW-26/D) which mentions the IMEI number of the said phone was put to the accused. Even if we disregard the position that the said IMEI number of Nokia 1600 is mentioned in the mobile call records of telephone No. 9718006863 and that recovery of Nokia phone 1600 was effected from the appellant, there is enough evidence to show that the police had in fact recovered Nokia mobile phone 2600 from the accused vide seizure memo Exhibit PW-26/E. Peru Mal (PW-3) and Mani (PW-15) son and wife of the deceased respectively had identified the said mobile phone and stated that it belonged to the deceased. They had also indicated that the said phone was of golden colour. The bill (Exhibit P2) and the cardboard box of the said phone (Exhibit P3) have also been proved. Recovery of Nokia phone 1600 from the appellant is also proved.