Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

40. It was submitted that the prosecution sought to establish that Shri Bhagwan Sharma used SIM Card No. 9811008825 by inserting the same in a Nokia mobile instrument having IMEI No.490520304282810 to talk to R.K. Sharma and other convicts during the period November 1998 to 23-01-1999. On 23-01-1999 SIM card No.9811008825 was allegedly destroyed and the mobile instrument having IMEI No.490520304282810 was then allegedly used by Satya Prakash Sharma with SIM card No. 9811048912 from 04-03-1999 to 05-07-1999 and from 05-07-1999 to 22- 09-1999 this mobile instrument was allegedly used by Pradeep Sharma and occasionally by his friend PW111 Narendra Solanki and from 07-12-2001 to 20-07- 2002 the said mobile instrument is alleged to have been used by PW126 Hari Chand in conjunction with SIM card No.9810025524.

41. In an attempt to prove the Shri Bhagwan Sharma's ownership and use of SIM Card No. 9811008825 and mobile handset having IMEI No.490520304282810, the prosecution examined

1. PW18 Naveen Kumar (relative of Shri Bhagwan Sharma);

2. PW97 Rohit Dabar and PW107 Shailender Gaba (owners of shop Nirmal Communications, Lajpat Nagar from where the said SIM card and mobile instrument were allegedly purchased by Shri Bhagwan Sharma through PW18 Naveen Kumar);

47. It was also submitted that instrument with IMEI No. 490520304282810 was alleged to have been used with SIM card No. 9810025524. PW126 Hari Chand claims to have obtained the mobile instrument having IMEI No. 490520304282810 from one Sonu who is not examined. Furthermore, PW 126 Hari Chand does not affirm in his testimony that SIM Card No. 9810025524 belonged to him.

48. It was submitted that there was nothing on record to link SIM card No.9811008825 and mobile instrument having IMEI No.490520304282810 with Shri Bhagwan Sharma as there was no documentary evidence to show ownership of the said SIM card and mobile equipment and the witnesses examined did not support the prosecution case on this aspect. In fact, according to Mr Luthra, the prosecution could not even bring on record as to how they became aware of IMEI No.490520304282810. Furthermore, neither the said SIM card nor mobile instrument was produced.

147. PW135 Major AR Satish (retd) stated that in the year 1999, two mobile companies namely Essar and Airtel were operating in Delhi. He further stated that he had worked with Essar as Executive (Administration) from 01-08-2001 to 27-09- 2002. He also stated that Essar Company is now known as Hutchison. He further testified that in order to operate any mobile phone instrument, a SIM card has to be inserted and every SIM card has an individual SIM number. Every mobile phone instrument also has a unique distinct number which is called the IMEI number. He stated that whenever a call is made or received the computer automatically records the date, calling number, called number, time, duration of the call, cell ID and the IMEI number of the instrument. He stated that the printout of mobile telephone number 9811008825 was got taken out by him which was running in six pages and is for the period 03-01-1999 to 23-01-1999 and all the pages of the printout are collectively marked as exhibit PW 135/28. He also stated that all the pages of exhibit PW 135/28 bear his signatures at point A as well as the seal of the company and that it is a correct printout.