Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. PW-1 Smt. Champa V. Gowda is the injured and she is the complainant; complaint is at Ex.P1; Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 are marked in her evidence. PW-2 is another injured; He is the husband of PW-1. PW-3 is the neighbour of PWs.1 and 2; He saw the motorcycle which was standing on the road in front of their house and one person sitting on the said motor cycle whose engine was on and at that point of time, two persons came from the house of PWs.1 and 2 and sat on the motorcycle and all the three fled away from the said place; He has seen the person sitting on the motorcycle with the help of light emanating from street light; Thereafter the car of PW-2 went away from his house; The people were talking that the acid was thrown on PW-2; He has identified Accused No.2 in Court Hall during the course of trial before the trial Court. PW-4 is the neighbour of PW-2; He accompanied PW-2 to the Government Hospital. PW-5 is also another neighbour of PW-2 and he also accompanied PW-2 to the Government Hospital. PWs.4 and 5 came to the spot after the incident. PW-6 is the person before whom extra judicial confession was stated to have been made by Accused No.1 on the midnight of 2.3.2007. PW-7 is the Marketing Executive of Airtel Mobile phone; He has also deposed about mobile sim number of Accused No.2 and call records pertaining to the said sim. PW-8 is the worker in the petrol bunk; He has deposed about purchase of battery acid by Accused No.1 about one month prior to the incident; Petrol bunk is situated at Madikeri town. PW-9 is the photographer who took photographs of scene of offence etc.; Ex.P9 to P19 are the photographs; Ex.P20 are the negatives of the photographs; Ex.P23 and P24 are the cash receipts for having paid the amount to the photographer in order to take out photographs. PW-10 is the Sub-Divisional Engineer of BSNL; He has spoken of Ex.P25, the call records pertaining to the BSNL sim card belonging to Accused No.1. PW-11 is the owner of the canteen; she has deposed that Accused Nos.2 and 3 came at about 11 to 11.30 p.m. on 27.2.2007 and got packed 5 eggs from their canteen. PW-12 is an advocate by profession; He was working in the chambers of PW-2; He is the witness for spot mahazar Ex.P26. PW-13 is another witness for scene of offence panchanama Ex.P26. PW-14 is a mahazar witness for seizure of mobile phones of Accused Nos.1 and 2 under Ex.P28 and Ex.P29. The evidence of PW-15 is on par with the evidence of PW-14 inasmuch as he is also one of the panchas to the seizure of mobile phone. PW-16 is the vegetable vendor; He is a client of PW-2; He had got dispute with Accused No.1 before the Court; He has deposed about the motive and threat given by Accused No.1 to PW-2 earlier in the Court premises. PW-16 is the accused in C.C. NO.704/2005; In the said case, PW-2 cross-examined Accused No.1 thoroughly and at that point of time, Accused No.1 allegedly threatened PW-2 of dire consequences. PW-17 is the owner of the motorcycle which was hired by Accused No.2 on the date of the incident; the said motorcycle was seized by the Investigating Officer at the behest of Accused No.2. PW- 18 - Nalin Kumar accompanied PWs.1 and 2 from KVJ Medical College Hospital, Sullia to A.J. Hospital, Mangalore. PW-19 is the owner of the electric shop and the said electric shop is situated in the building in which the office of PW-2 is situated; according to him, accused No.1 came in the evening of the incident enquiring about PW-2 to know as to whether PW-2 was in the office or not. PW-20 is the doctor at A.J. Hospital; He treated PW-2 and issued the medical certificate as per Ex.P35. PW-21 is the doctor working in the Community Health Centre, Sullia; He treated PW-1 and issued Ex.P36, the Medical Certificate. PW-22 is the Revenue Inspector; He has issued Ex.P37, the House Extract of PWs.1 and 2 where the incident has taken place. PW-23 is the Secretary of the Panchayath who has issued Ex.P38, the house extract of the building belonging to Fathima (wife of Accused No.1). PW-24 is the doctor who treated Santosh (Accused No.3) at Community Health Centre, Sullia; The Medical Certificate is at Ex.P40. PW-25 is the Executive Engineer of MESCOM, Puttur; He has deposed that there was electricity supply at the Sullia town at the time of the incident; The said certificate is Ex.P41. PW-26 is the Assistant Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory; His report is at Ex.P42; He has deposed that the burnt dhoti and green coloured towel i.e., the clothes of PW-2 and the acid burnt clothes of Accused No.3 were containing Sulphuric Acid. PW-27 is the Police Constable; He took the material for Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. PW-28 is the Head Constable; He was the SHO of Sullia Police Station during the relevant period; He registered the FIR as per Ex.P44; Crime No.33/2007 was registered in Sullia Police Station by PW-28. PW-29 is the Head Constable; He recorded the statement of PW-2 on 28.2.2007; He also recorded further statement of PW-1. PW-30 is the Taluka Executive Magistrate; He conducted Test Identification parade in respect of Accused NO.3; PWs.1 and 2 have identified Accused No. 2. PW-31 is the Sub-Inspector of Police; He has conducted part of the investigation and handed over to PW-33. PW-32 is the Plastic Surgeon at A.J. Hospital, Mangalore; He treated PW.2 and issued the certificate as per Ex.P35. PW-33 is the Investigating Officer who completed investigation and laid the charge sheet.

(d) Discovery of mobile phones of Accused Nos.1 and 2 and call records:

26. The mobile phone of Accused NO.1 is having sim card of BSNL company and mobile number is 9448164611.

There are two mobile phones of Accused No.2; one containing BSNL sim card and another containing Airtel sim card. BSNL Mobile Number of Accused No.2 is 9449546661; The Airtel mobile number of Accused No.2 is 9945071195. According to the prosecution, Accused No.2 is the driver of Accused No.1; they conversed with each other over phone, number of times prior to the incident in question and also after the incident in question. Ex.P28 is the mahazar relating to seizure of BSNL mobile phone of Accused No.2. Ex.P29 is the mahazar relating to seizure of BSNL mobile phone of Accused No.1. Such seizures are made in the Police Station. Ex.P22 is the call records of 9945071195 (Airtel mobile phone of Accused No.2). However the call records of BSNL mobile phone of Accused No.2 are not obtained from BSNL. The Airtel mobile of Accused No.2 was not seized by the Police. But only BSNL mobile phone of Accused No.2 was seized by the Police. However the call records of Airtel phone of Accused No.2 are produced before the Court. We have perused the call records produced before the Court pertaining to the mobile phones of Accused Nos.1 and 2. One or two calls made by Accused Nos.1 and 2 match each other. But majority of the calls do not match each other. For example; if 'A' calls at 10 p.m. to 'B', corresponding entry should be found in the mobile phone of 'B' ; so also if 'B' calls at about 10.30 p.m. to 'A', corresponding entry should be found in the phone of 'A'. But in the matter on hand, the entries do not match with each other; only one or two entries match with each other. In that regard, Sri B.P. Venkatesh, learned SPP argues that whenever one person calls another person over phone at a particular time, there will be entry in the mobile phone of caller of the phone. If the person to whom the call was intended, has switched off the mobile, then there is every likelihood that there will be no entry in such person's mobile phone. But the Court cannot proceed on such assumptions. Moreover admittedly Accused No.2 is the driver of Accused No.1. It is not uncommon for a driver to call his master or master to call his driver four-times in a day.

The prosecution has not examined any witness from BSNL to show that phone no.9449546661 belongs to Accused No.2; so also the call records maintained by BSNL in respect of 9449546661 are not produced. The call records found in Ex.P28 do not tally with the call records found in Ex.P25.

In relation to seizure of Airtel phone of Accused No.2 i.e., 9945071195, no mahazar is drawn. So also there is no recovery of the mobile phone on the basis of the voluntary statement. However PW-7, the Marketing Executive of Airtel, Sullia has deposed that Airtel mobile in question belongs to Accused No.2 inasmuch as its Airtel sim was sold to him. To show that BSNL phone No.9448164611 belongs to Accused No.1, the prosecution has examined PW-10 who is the officer of BSNL. However no documents are produced to show that the said phone belongs to Accused NO.1. According to the Police, the said phone was seized at the behest of Accused No.1. Ex.P47 and Ex.P48 are the voluntary statements of Accused Nos.2 and 3, but those statements do not involve Accused No.1. From the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the call details as well as seizure of mobile phones are not perfect. The evidence in that regard is shaky. It would be hard for the Court to base conviction on such material relating to the aforementioned circumstance.