Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

66. However first of all neither the said phone numbers are mentioned in the DD No. 10A nor the name of the informant has been given. Also from the statement of PW1, it is clear that the premises number of PW1 is also RZ­1. It is the admitted case of parties that Paprawat Road was passing between the shops of both the sides, which were across to each other. Further DW­7, Nodal officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd, the concerned witness from the service provider of mobile phone no. 9810448608 has not produced and proved the CDR of the said mobile phone number regarding the said call. Also the concerned official from MTNL i.e. DW8 Sanjeev Narang, Section Supervisor, MTNL, Telephone Exchange, Rajouri Garden, has not duly proved the CDR of call being made from land line no. 25019624 at phone no. 100. Thus the claim of accused persons that the aforesaid calls were made by them only, does not stand proved. Even if for arguments sake if it is assumed that the accused persons had Page No. 38 of 49.