Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

k 2/3 21 alp 240.25 as cri.doc

3. After going through the notes of evidence it appears that the Applicant has given express admissions in the cross-examination that most of the statements made by him during the course of his examination-in-chief are not reflected in the FIR/police statement.

The learned Sessions Judge has considered this discrepancy and recorded a finding that the Applicant has improved upon his case. It appears that the Applicant had relied upon alleged video recorded on mobile phone. However, requisite certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was not filed alongwith the said recording. Furthermore, hash value of the video contained in the pen-drive and mobile was not drawn. The learned Sessions Judge has considered all these aspects and has passed an order of acquittal. It is apposite to reproduce findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in paragraphs 16,17 and 18 of the acquittal order.

On this point testimony of informant is different from testimony of PW2 and PW4. There is material discrepancy in the evidence.

17. Kavish PW2 has deposed that, he recorded the incident in his mobile phone. The video was given to the Investigating officer in Pendrive MO-1. It has come in the cross-examination that, hash value of video contained in Pendrive and Mobile was not drawn. He further admitted that, in the said video there is no conversation about "लगडया तुलापण मारीन व तुझ्या सोबतच्या भैय्यांना पण मारिरन". Certificate required under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is not produced. Hence, the contents of the video recording are not proved as per law.