Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(x) Report dated 22.6.2010 on the subject scrutiny of Orkut Profile (Page No. 1 to 71).

It is further stated in the application that this issue was raised by the CBI before the Special Leave Petition filed in the Apex Court that it was typographical error in describing the exhibits by the CDFD Hyderabad. This letter also forms part of the counter affidavit filed by CBI in the Hon'ble Apex Court in the present case. This letter is now required to be exhibited in the court.

It is contended by learned counsel for the CBI that the aforesaid documents were collected during the investigation and forms part of the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.. These documents need to be exhibited in their original form.

Power to collect or file documents would arise in case further investigation in the matter was on, which is not the case herein. Specific objections were taken to the filing of the clarificatory letter dated 24.3.2011.

The contention of the accused is that during investigation of the case one pillow with pillow covers were recovered from the room of deceased Hem Raj. One pillow cover was seized from the room of Krishna who was suspected accused at that time. The said exhibits were numbered and sent to the forensic laboratory at Hyderabad where they were examined and a report to that extent was also obtained. As per the report of CDFD, Hyderabad the pillow cover seized from the room of accused Krishna was found with DNA positive of deceased Hem Raj. Having realized the serious flaw in the prosecution case, pursuant to the summoning order issued against the accused persons, the Investigating Authorities in order to botch up the case and to somehow ensure at any cost that alternative hypothesis for the commission of crime are closed on the face of the accused persons, an attempt has been made by the authorities to obtain a certification from the CDFD Hyderabad to the extent that the forensic authorities based in Hyderabad committed a typographical error in this regard.

On the other hand stand of the CBI is that there is no new evidence or documents brought on record. Report of the CFDL is already part of the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. What is being produced before the Court is clarificatory letter submitted by the concerned scientist that there has been some typographical error in mentioning the description of the exhibits vide its report dated 6.11.2008.

In order to clarify this issue following things have been mentioned in the objection filed by the CBI, which is quoted hereunder:

1.There are typographical errors in the description of the exhibits Z 14 and Z 20.

2.The description of Exhibit Z 14 shall be read as below:

"One pillow cover (purple coloured cloth) Y 204 CI 10" instead of pillow with pillow cover (blue and while coloured)".

3. The description of Exhibit Z 20 shall be read as below:-

"Pillow with pillow cover (blue and while coloured) Y 204 CI 14" instead of "One pillow cover (purple coloured cloth)".

In nut shell corrigendum issued by the CDFD is that there is a typographical error while describing the exhibits Z 14 and Z 20 hence the opinion is to be read by exchanging the description of exhibits in respect of Y 204 CI 10 and Y 204 CI 14 meaning thereby in nutshell that the pillow with pillow cover which contain the DNA of Hemraj was actually seized from the room of Hemraj and belongs to Hemraj only.