Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. On completion of the investigation, the investigating machinery filed charge sheet against these two appellants and the third accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 387, 507 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. The learned trial Court conducted the trial and on the basis of the evidence adduced on record, convicted all three accused as aforesaid.

10. Learned Advocate for the appellant Pradeep submits that though the prosecution has examined so many witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused, out of those witnesses, 13 witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. He further submits that the learned trial Court has definitely erred in appreciating the evidence on record by ignoring vital admissions given by the witnesses, in their ..10.. CriAl-364-17 .odt cross-examination. He pointed out that the seizure of mobile Handsets, either from the appellant Pradeep or from the appellant Divya, is highly doubtful. He further pointed out that though the Call Details Record (for short "CDR") of SIM cards used by both the appellants were produced on record, but such type of electronic evidence, without valid certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, is not admissible at all. According to him, the investigating officers, while collecting such certificates, failed to obtain the same in proper format as per the provision. He also did not record any hash value, he contended that all certificates under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act were given as formality only, without complying all clauses of Section 65-B. He pointed out that no details of IP addresses of computers are given by any of the Nodal Officers, from whom CDR and SDR of the mobile Handsets allegedly recovered from the appellants were obtained which creates doubt about the authenticity of the said electronic evidence. According to him, last digits of mobile Handsets of appellants are missing. Moreover, the SIM cards seized from the appellant Pradeep were not in his name. According to him, the CDR on record in respect of Mobile Handsets of the appellants cannot be relied upon, for want of ..11.. CriAl-364-17 .odt proper certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Moreover, though it was alleged by the prosecution that cousin of the deceased had recorded call between appellant Pradeep and himself, only transcript of the same has been produced on record. Further, the investigating machinery did not make any effort to obtain any report from Forensic Science Laboratory in respect of voice samples of the appellant Pradeep. Further, according to him, the alleged messages sent to the informant were also not brought on record in the form of screen shots.