Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

29. The   submission   of   Shri   Singh   that   Bus   Ex.P­1,   has been   falsely   implicated   is   also   stated   to   be   rejected. All these submissions were considered by this Court while delivering the judgment in paragraphs 98­107. This   Court has   rejected   the   submission   of   the   petitioners   that   it was a case of plantation of Bus, the Bus was found to be involved in the incident from the evidence on record.

30. Contention of Mr. V.K. Singh is that the bus No. DL 1 PC   0149   (Ext.   P/1)   has   been   falsely   implicated   and   the CCTV Footage cannot be relied upon and this aspect is not properly considered by this Court.   The exact points now raised   by   Mr.   Singh   in   para   (M)   of   the   review   petition were considered by this Court in paras (98) to (113) and paras   (435)   to   (439).     In   para   (101),   this   Court   has referred   to   the   evidence   of   PW­76   Gautam   Roy,   HoD, Computer   Cell,   Forensic   Division   who   has   examined   the CCTV Footage received by him in a Pen Drive in two sealed parcels.  In paras (98) to (113), this Court has referred to   the   evidence   regarding   retrieval   of   CCTV   Footage   in the   presence   of   PW­67   Pramod   Kumar   Jha,   owner   of   the hotel at Delhi Airport and the photographs taken thereon to   prove   the   involvement   of   the   bus   No.   DL   1   PC   0149 (Ext. P/1).