Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

34. When A-5 was again interrogated in the office by PW-47, he is stated to have further disclosed that the mobile phone which had been robbed from the victim had been given to Amit @ Bunty (A-6), a friend of A-7. He disclosed that it was A-7, a friend of A-3, who took A-10 and himself to A-6 for changing the IMEI number because it was an expensive mobile phone and they had decided to use it themselves. According to A-5, when the mobile phone was handed over to A-6, A-10 was also present.

Arrest and disclosure of A-6

Seizure of two other mobile phones

40. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the IMEI number of the recovered mobile phone did not match with the repaired phone‟s IMEI number as intimated by PW-43. When PW-47 again went to Hotspot Spice Mobile shop at Darya Ganj, PW-43 informed her that the repaired IMEI was interchanged with the IMEI of one Balram, a resident of Gurgaon.

41. At this stage, it is necessary to note that according to the prosecution, the last four digits of the IMEI number of the mobile phone of the deceased was 8392. The IMEI of the mobile phone that was seized from A-6 was 3067. It has come in the evidence of Uma Shankar (PW-33) who was working as a Senior Manager in Run Service Infocare Pvt. Limited, Chennai that, on 13th December 2010, they received one Sony Ericsson mobile phone, model „X-10 I‟, bearing an IMEI number the last four digits of which were 8392 from the Hotspot Spice Mobile shop at Daryaganj, Delhi with the complaint that the said set "was having on/off problem and turn off randomly and remain in poor network". According to PW-33, he repaired the said mobile phone with changed mother board and sent it to the Mumbai Centre to be delivered to another customer. He states that they sent the mobile phone of the Delhi customer with a changed motherboard and therefore, the IMEI numbers of both mobile phones were changed and the new IMEI number of the Delhi customer‟s phone was ending with 3086.

42. It transpired that in the present case, the police recovered three mobile phones in all. One was recovered from A-6, with the last four digits of the IMEI number being 3067; the second was recovered from Balram (PW-39), a resident of Gurgaon, the IMEI number of which ended in 3086; and the third was recovered from Vivek Vats (PW-38) from Bombay, the last four digits of the IMEI number of which was 8392.

43. It is necessary to note at this stage that till 25th February 2011, the police had only the mobile phone of the deceased and the registration number of the car. They never obtained CDRs of the mobile number of the deceased. The invoice of the mobile phone which contained the IMEI number was made available only on 25th February 2011. The RC of the stolen car was also only provided to the police only on that date. Why such basic information pertaining to these two main stolen articles was only obtained four months after the date of the incident has not been adequately explained by the prosecution. How they hoped to trace either of these objects without this vital information is beyond comprehension.

(vii) A-3 returned the pistol to A-4 after its use. A-4 kept it hidden in his house.

(viii) The stolen Honda City car was given to A-7 to A-9 who in turn approached A-10 to help them sell it with a fake number plate of HR-26- AK-0728.

(ix) The accused decided to retain and use the Sony Eriksson mobile phone, which was new, and on the advice of A-7 approached A-6. The motherboard of the mobile phone was deliberately tampered by A-6 so that when he gave it for repairs the IMEI number would be changed. This would help avoid detection. After the change of the IMEI number A-6 kept the mobile phone with him. Upon his arrest, the phone was recovered from his possession.