Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

FSL Experts:

(33) PW17 Dr. N P. Waghmare has deposed that on 02.04.2012 he was posted at Computer Forensic Unit of the FSL, Rohini Delhi and on that day one sealed cloth parcel was received at FSL Rohini and the same was marked to him and he tallied the seal with the specimen seal and found the seal intact and correct. According to him on opening the parcel he found one mobile phone make Nokia model No. N­79­1 bearing IMEI No. 356387/02/184239/9 containing one vodafone SIM card which was marked by him as Ex.SC­1 and one NOKIA micro SD 4 GB memory card which was marked by him as Ex.MC­1 and the whole mobile phone was marked by him as Ex.MP­1. He has proved that after examining the SIM card and the memory card he gave his detailed examination report which is Ex.PW17/A. Witness has further deposed that he gave his opinion about the SIM card Ex.SC­1 in the annexure A hard copies which are Ex.PW17/B (17 pages) and he also analyzed the memory card Ex.MC­1 and the relevant retrieve data was given in the CD­R which is Ex.PW17/C. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels despite opportunity given and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted. (34) PW18 Sh. Puneet Puri has deposed that on 27.03.2012 three sealed parcels, parcel No. 1 and 2 were sealed with the seal of OPS and parcel no.3 was sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM HOSPITAL DELHI were received in FSL which were marked to him for examination and the seals on the parcels were intact and as per the specimen seals provided with the FSL form. According to him on opening the first parcel one revolver of .32 inch caliber bearing No. P 8310, four .32inch cartridges and one .32 inch cartridge case, one holster and one sling were taken out which were marked as Ex.F­1, A­1 to A­4, EC­1, HS­1 and SL­1 respectively by him. He has further deposed that on opening the second parcel eight .32 inch cartridges were taken out and marked as Ex.A­5 to Ex.A­12 respectively by him and on opening the third parcel one deformed bullet was taken out and marked as Ex.EB­1 by him. He has proved that on examination he found that the revolver marked Ex.F­1 was in working order and test fire was conducted successfully by using the cartridges marked Ex.A­1, A­2 and the the test fired cartridge cases were marked as TC­1 and TC­2 and two recovered test fired bullets were marked as TB­1 and TB­2 respectively. He has also proved that the cartridge case marked Ex.EC­1 was a fired empty cartridge and had been fired through the revolver marked Ex.F­1 as the individual characteristics of firing pin marks and breech face marks present on Ex.EC­1 and on test fired cartridge cases marked TC­1 and TC­2 were found identical when examined under the comparison microscope. He has further proved that the deformed bullet marked Ex.EB­1 was corresponding to the bullet of .