Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. It is elicited in the cross-examination of Pw.1 that "It is true to suggest that the aforesaid IP address is not a permanent address and it may change at any time. It is true to suggest that the same IP address may be allotted to some one else if it is free".

12. Pw.2 is the Investigating Officer who had received the complaint and conducted the investigation. Pw.2 had deposed the role played by her during the investigation.

"It is true that out of the six IP addresses shown in Ex.P.8, four IP addresses are belonging to USA". "Though I tried to get details about those four IP addresses, but I could not succeed as there was no proper response from the other side".

"It is true that the contents of Ex.P.11 are not pertaining to accused No.1. It is true that the IP physical addresses mentioned in Ex.P.1 is belonging to one Rekha Dhingra. I have not examined the said lady and not recorded her statement. I have not tried to ascertain the nature of Internet service taken by Rekha Dhingra.

17. It is the case of the prosecution that on 17th and 18th of April 2009 there were some illegal transactions in the account of Mr.Chivakule Subramanyam without his knowledge transferring funds amounting to Rs.4 Lakhs to two accounts of Kolkata branch of ICICI Bank and details of beneficiaries are 1) Subrato Mukherjee ICICI Bank account No.627701511410 and Sanjay Singh account No.054001501701 (accused Nos.4 and 5). Further as per the evidence of Pw.1 one Rekha Dingra has operated the said IP address during the relevant period from phone No.2362122 of Jhansi. The said Rekha Dingra has not even made as a witness in the charge sheet by the prosecution. When accused No.1 has not operated the said IP address during the relevant period, it is not known what is the role played by accused no.1 and the accusation made against the accused No.1 is not substantiated by the prosecution. Pw.2 Investigating Officer has deposed that she has sought information from Axis Bank, where the beneficiaries have withdrawn the money. The said Axis Bank authorities have not given the details. The investigation conducted by the prosecution appears to be defective investigation. There is no evidence that there is contact between the accused persons and the absconding accused Nos.4 and 5 Mr.Subrato Mukherjee and Sanjay Singh who are said to be beneficiaries and sharing of money. The prosecution has failed to prove that there is transaction between the alleged beneficiaries and accused Nos.1 and 2.

18. Pw.2 had admitted in the cross-examination that there is no direct transaction between the account of accused No.1 and the account of the victim and through the IP address of the accused No.1, no transaction has taken place. Pw.2 had further admitted that the phishing email IP address mentioned in Ex.P12 given by BSNL is different from the IP address sought by Investigating Officer and she could not trace the four transactions took place in USA, since she could not get the details and there was no proper response from the other side. The prosecution has not made as a witness the said Rekha Dingra nor examined her nor recorded her statement. It creates a doubt about genuineness of the case of the prosecution.