State vs . 1.Sunil Kumar Raghav, S/O Jaipal ... on 21 December, 2013
201.Further, the call detail record have not been properly proved insofar as mark
PW18/A1 to A5 and mark 25/A6 have not been exhibited and sofaras call detail
record Ex.PW17/A1 to A4 are concerned, the nodal officer of Bharti Airtel
SC No.94/2012
State vs. Sunil Kumar Raghav and others 65/70
PW17 Sh. R.K. Singh had not produced any certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence
Act in support of the computer generated call detail record and so far as the
ownership of the mobile phone number 9810675812 is concerned, no record was
brought by this witness in this respect during the course of his examination.
Therefore, the fact that the accused Sunil Kumar Raghav and accused Sehzad was
in contact with each other through their respective phone numbers 9810675812
and 9811029676 have not proved by the prosecution.