Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

115. Third transcription is of call made from mobile No.7666153880 on 2/6/2012 at 19.53 hrs. This is supported by CDR proved by PW 17 at Exh. 152 and it is also reflected in Exh.

124. In Exh. 152, IMEI number of caller is recorded as 404929205725244 i.e. same as of call mentioned supra but with different phone number. In Exh. 124 IMEI number of this caller is recorded as "356650035065150". Any of the three handsets allegedly found with accused no. 1 does not have this IMEI number.

Confirmation Case No. 3 of 2018.final.doc

116. On the same day at about 19.56 hrs the transcription shows the call received from 7666153880. In Exh. 124, none of the IMEI numbers found with the accused appear. On 3/6/2012 as per transcript call is received by PW 1 from mobile number 8767237582 at 22.05 hrs. Our findings in relation to IMEI number of accused no. 1 supra, hold good even in relation to this call.

117. The next transcript available in Exh. 109 is of the call dated 4/6/2012 at 12.37 hrs. This call is made by mobile number 8080840472. The IMEI number there does not show that the call emanated from any of the three handsets found with accused no.

121. The last call which is transcribed in Exh. 109 and it has been made from the same mobile number at 22.25 hrs. IMEI number of calling handset is the same as mentioned supra and hence, our observations on last digit becoming zero made supra Confirmation Case No. 3 of 2018.final.doc fully apply here. On record, we get remand application Exh. 185 in which, the IO has mentioned that total six mobile phones and 9 SIM cards were recovered from 5 accused persons. We have already noted supra that as per certificate Exh.119 and document at Exh.128, mobile number 7666993452 is of one Jahid Khan. Learned APP has demonstrated that in the CDR produced on record this phone number is found with different IMEI number. Our attention has been invited to calls made on 1/5/2012, 27/5/2012 and 28/5/2012 till 29/5/2012 to buttress this submission. It is submitted that from 29 th May, 2012 again IMEI number of Article 18 has been used till 05 th June, 2012. As noted supra, article 18 is of black colour Nokia mobile handset allegedly found with accused no. 1. We have already commented upon the last 4 digits of the said IMEI number and the submission of witness Mr. Gaikwad (PW 13) that the last digit is shown as "zero" in their system. We find it difficult to accept this bare statement. Moreover, as per Exh. 128 this phone number (SIM card) is of one Jahid Khan. There is no explanation about him on record.

143. It can be seen that if the demands of ransom made by the accused persons are established conclusively through CDR, it may constitute one of the important circumstance by itself. However, the mobile numbers through which calls have come are not shown to be in possession of or in the use of accused no. 1 at the relevant time. The effort is only to demonstrate possession of handsets in which SIM cards supporting particular mobile number/caller number were placed. The authorities have not investigated into the other calls made Confirmation Case No. 3 of 2018.final.doc with the help of these three handsets or through those IMEI numbers and did not point out that any relative or friend of accused persons has received phone call from the handset having that IMEI number. Police could not trace out the mobile numbers but then police also did not get any data to demonstrate that the user of those mobile numbers had called the particular person who happens to be the friend or relative of the accused. Police have not produced any statement of such person who got call from accused persons using that mobile number or using IMEI number of that handset.