Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. PW 14 Bala Ajagare is the next witness who speaks of the process of transfer and is panch witness for that purpose. Through his deposition, the prosecution attempted to prove the seizure of data containing extra judicial confession on 18/4/2016 vide seizure memo Exh.70. This witness points out that PW 9 Subhash was present at the time of transfer of data. However, this witness explains the procedure followed by PW 17 Shri. Thakare. He CONF.CASE NO.2.2018.odt explains that the folder of 'File Manager' was opened by PW 9 and then he entered the password "6892". The folder thereafter could be accessed and it reveled two recorded calls. First call was at 3.28 am on 18/4/2016 and it lasted for 1 minute and 28 seconds. The another call recorded was at 3.30 am. PW 14 gives gist of alleged talk between the accused and PW 9 Subhash. Advocate Nikam submits that it has not been properly established. He expresses surprise that after completing this procedure of transferring data in pendrive, police did not seize the mobile of Subhash. It was seized on 1/5/2016 i.e. after 13 days of getting the knowledge that the mobile contained recording of extra judicial confession. This witness also accepts that there were several call recordings in the mobile phone of PW 9 and they were either before or after recording the two calls in question. He has also invited our attention to hash value and its importance in the process. He submits that the seizure memo at Exh. 70 does not record the fact of opening of the file manager by PW 9 or his applying the digital key to unlock the folder. He therefore, contends that neither Exh. 70 nor deposition of PW 14 can inspire any confidence in the present matter.

39. PW 14 Bala Ajagare claims that he was witness to the said data transfer. He also states that PW 9 Subhash Rajput was then present in the police Station. The mobile of Subhash had two SIM cards one was of Voldaphone Company while the other was of Airtel company. When in the contact list name "Rama" was typed, number 9823919275 appeared. Then folder 'File Manager' was opened by PW 9. The said folder was locked with a password "6892". The folder had two call recordings. One at 3.28 am was dated 18/4/2016 and it lasted for 1 minute and 28 seconds. The recording was opened and person by name Rama told Rajput that at his hands a big mishap had happened. Rajput enquired and Rama told him to meet personally. He then told that he was at Thakkar Bazar near CBS. Another recording at 3.30 am show that CONF.CASE NO.2.2018.odt Rama told Rajput not to disclose anything to any family member. The further examination-in-chief shows the process of copying to pendrive. He states that copy of the print was taken from printer. He also identified that print out. He also proved panchanama at Exh. 70. The printout of hash value has been given Exh. 71.

40. On 1/5/2016 he was again called at police station for seizure of mobile of Rajput. He identified that mobile in the Court. He in his cross examination deposed that on 18/4/2016, he himself, PW 9 Rajput and police were present at police station. He did not know who brought the pendrive. He has deposed that Rajput was sitting with his mobile and it was opened by Rajput only. He also stated that there were several call recordings in the mobile phone of Rajput and the same were before and after the disputed calls. He stated that the laptop was already there and there was no earlier recording in it. He did not see the data in the laptop. He stated that the print out of hash value was taken which was not signed by himself or any other pancha.