Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

● That the trial court committed serious illegality in placing reliance upon unnatural and unbelievable version of complainant that accused was following her at Metro Station, Nirman Vihar, Delhi and accused was clicking his mobile phone to take her photograph and on her protest, accused deleted the photo. Same are totally false and concocted story. No such incident ever took place and appellant had not taken any photo of complainant from his mobile phone. That the case of appellant from very beginning was that he had not taken any photo of complainant from his mobile phone. On one hand it was alleged that mobile phone of Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi appellant was taken and checked, which did not contain any photo of complainant, but at the same time it was alleged by the prosecution that on protest of complainant, accused had deleted her photo. The investigation agency was bound to seize the camera and send the same to CFSL to obtain report whether mobile phone and memory card of mobile phone of appellant, contained photographs of complainant. It had been admitted by the witnesses that police officials after checking the mobile phone of appellant, did not seize the same and returned it to the appellant, which clearly shows that the mobile phone was not used by appellant for taking photos of victim/ complainant and the only conclusion which could be safely reached that no such photos were taken by the appellant.

● That the trial court committed serious illegality in ignoring material improvement made by complainant in her version in court from FIR. Complainant did not make any allegation of hearing voice of clicking of photograph and did not allege of appellant being apprehended by Metro Staff/ CISF officials personnel in FIR. ● That there is no justification on the part of investigating agency in not sending mobile phone of appellant to CFSL. That as such, the non seizure of mobile phone of petitioner clearly shows that he had never attempted to take photograph of alleged complainant from his mobile phone.