Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(6) It is contended that in fact, the present case is the case of no evidence since the electronic evidence, which has been examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) conclusively does not point out the involvement of the appellant in the offence. It is submitted that though the DNA Profile obtained from the blood samples of the accused matches with the DNA Profile found on the laptop however, it is submitted that the laptop does not show any log with regard to the print out taken from the printer seized from the office NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1523/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2023 undefined of the accused.

(10) Mr.Lakhani, learned Senior Advocate, has contended that in fact, the accused was arrested on 30.10.2017 at 12:00 hr. at night, and he was taken from Ahmedabad to Mumbai at his office and was asked to prepare a demo on 31.10.2017 in the morning at the office, which ended at 12:15 a.m. It is submitted that the laptop, DVR and a printer were seized from the NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1523/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2023 undefined office of the appellant on that day, which were sent to the FSLs, Gandhinagar and Mumbai. He has placed reliance on the FSL reports and has submitted that in the Hard Drive of the laptop of the appellant, the fragments of the threat- note were recovered, however, it is submitted that in all probabilities, the fragments of the Note in the laptop can be said to be of demo since neither the FSL report dated 20.01.2018 nor the report dated 16.01.2018 reveal the exact time and date of creation or deletion of the threat-note. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance in the deposition of PW- 13 at Exh.47, Shri Harshad Chimanlal Soni, the Branch Manager of the firm of the accused being Crystal, Gems and Jewelries, who, in his deposition, has admitted that the accused in fact, was brought on 31.10.2017 at his office. It is further submitted that in his cross- examination, it is elicited from him that since their firm was dealing with diamonds and gold, they used to wear gloves in the office.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1523/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2023 undefined ANALYSIS OF ORAL EVIDENCE:

(42) The appellant who was one of the five passengers traveling in the business class of the aircraft was arrested at 24:00 hours, for using the lavatory and also exhibiting peculiar behavior of asking or requesting the crew members to use the lavatory of the aircraft coupled with the fact that he showed some anxiety and inquired about the diversion of the flight. Emphatically, the appellant remained seated on his seat no.1D of business class with seat belt fastened and he committed no overt act. After his arrest, he was taken to his office in Mumbai on 31.10.2017 by PW-22, Investigating Officer and he was asked to demonstrate of preparing a similar threat-note in English as well as in Urdu language and also to show the procedure of getting the printout from his EPSON printer. The Officer of the crime branch also seized the laptop, printer and some papers. The NIA took over the investigation on 07.11.2017 and thereafter, the charge sheet was filed by the NIA. It is the specific case of the prosecution that initially as per the complaint Exh.17 lodged by PW-1, the appellant had admitted that the threat-note was prepared by the accused in his office on 28.10.2017.

28.10.2017. The evidence of the report, Exh.103 as well as PW-23 reveals that no log was found linking the laptop and the printer and hence, the evidence will emphatically establishes that there was no command given from the laptop to the printer for taking out the print-out and hence, in absence of such evidence, it cannot be concluded that the print out of the threat- note was taken from the printer seized from the office of the appellant.