Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

20. It has been vehemently submitted by learned counsel for accused no.5 that he had never telephoned from his own telephone at the residence of the victim. In fact, telephone No.43533 is not belonging to STD PCO of accused No.5. This contention is not accepted by this Court. Looking to the evidence given by P.W.No.28 - Atulkumar Sharma, who is examined at Exh-182, who is Divisional Engineer, he has stated in his deposition that accused no.5 had initially having telephone no.34119, he applied for transfer of this telephone. He preferred an application and signed as Jay Telecommunication and new telephone number was given to accused No.5 as 43533. It is also stated by this witness P.W. No.28 Divisional Engineer that accused No.5 was also a holder of another phone number 41193 and there was conference facility with local telephone no.41193. Exh-184 reveals the fact that phone call was received at the house of CR.A/99/2000 32/68 JUDGMENT Manish from Phone No.43533, which is belonging to accused No.5. So far as Voice Spectrography is concerned, prosecution has examined P.W.No.29 - Chandrakumar Mahendrakumar Jain at Exh-196, who is Scientific Officer, C.B.I.. Looking to his deposition, Voice Spectrography Analyst supports the deposition given by P.W.Nos.3, 11, 12 and 13 read with deposition given by P.W. No.34 and deposition given by Bharatsingh Kanchanlal, wireless P.S.I., Bharuch. Identification of voices has been done by witnesses as well as by voice spectrography, as per report (Exh-199 - proved by PW No.29) presented before the Trial Court. Thus, the cassettes were provided by the police witnesses. They were also recovered under panchnama. Panch witnesses namely PW No.50 Shri Vijaykumar Kayasth was examined at Exh-241. Looking to the deposition of Jayendrasinh Zala, who is Investigating Officer examined at Exh-286, it has been proved by the prosecution that there was no tampering with the tap recording machine and looking to the conversation, as per deposition given by P.W.Nos.3, 11 and 13, these talks are relevant, so far as these offences are concern. Three ingredients propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, viz - there must be identification of voice by direct evidence, secondly what is recorded must have been proved so that tampering can be avoided that thirdly it must be relevant. All three ingredients have been proved by the prosecution CR.A/99/2000 33/68 JUDGMENT beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, evidence of recording of conversation reveals the fact that accused have abducted the victim and threatened him to cause death to get ransom in conspiracy with other co-conspirator. No error has been committed by the Trial Court in appreciating the evidence.