Matching Fragments
Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand has
made all efforts to defend the conviction recorded and
sentence awarded.
We examined the entire evidence in lucid,
including examination of videography made by the
investigating agency relating to unearthing of the tubewell
and its cleaning.
The circumstance relating to availability of Deeparam with
accused persons at the shop of Shriram and at Bawdi Bus
Stand -
5.A report Ex.P/3 of such unearthing of tubewell was drawn;
6.Videography of such unearthing was also made by Shri
Arjunram (PW-25) under instructions of Investigating
Officer.
7.After search of tubewell on 21.3.2006, that was put for
cleaning on 24.5.2006.
8.A videography of this process too was made by Shri
Arjunram;
9.As per the prosecution, while cleaning the tubewell,
certain parts of human bones, a wallet, clothes of
Deeparam, three electricity bills including a bill in the
name of Deeparam, a pen etc. came out and the same were
seized in accordance with law;
10.The bones were sent for medical examination and then to
Forensic Science Laboratory. Deoxyribo Nucleic Acid (DNA)
test of the bones, soft tissues and hair was made.
11.The electricity bills came out from the tubewell were in
full leaf and the writings thereon were legible;
12.The video recording made on 21.3.2006 and 24.5.2006 were
placed on record as Article-16 i.e. only one cassette,
thus, it appears that either the same cassette was used
for making videography on both the days or videographies
were made separately and then both were copied in one
cassette i.e. Article-16. Suffice to mention that the
cassette (Article-16) was displayed before us on
14.2.2013 through an electronic device operated by Shri
Shankar Lal Prajapat son of Shri Bhanwar Lal Prajapat,
resident of Manak Chowk, Jodhpur.
As already stated, the videography of excavation
made on 21.3.2006 and cleaning of tubewell taken place on
24.5.2006 was displayed before us on 14.2.2013 and while
scanning the videography we found that on 21.3.2006
excavation was started at 17:40 hours and stopped at 19:08
hours. The excavating was made by a excavator (JCB) and the
process was initiated again on 22.3.2006 at 10:40 hours. In
entire video pertaining to the days mentioned above, we do
not find any process of sealing or welding the unearthed
tubewell point. Suffice to mention that in the report
Ex.P/3 also no mention of such sealing or welding exists.
The video recording of the process of cleaning, that took
place on 24.5.2006, is in continuity of the videography of
the process that completed on 22.3.2006. On 24.5.2006
cleaning operation was was started at 11:11 hours. At 12:03
hours a cover of the borewell was removed. At 14:51 hours a
piece of cloth was shown near to the borewell. At 14:51
hours an another piece of cloth was shown nearby the
borewell. At 15:23 hours high pressure was given and
certain pieces of bones were shown lying near the borewell.
High pressure was again given at 17:09 hours that resulted
into heavy discharge of water. It is pertinent to mention
that the tubewell, at the time of cleaning, was discharging
water. The clothes and bones were not seen coming out from
the tubewell, but lying near the tubewell. On basis of the
evidence relating to the search of tubewell and cleaning
the same, the arguments formulated by learned counsel for
the accused appellants are as follows:-
