IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Even a serious discrepancy in oral evidence, would have had to yield to the scientific evidence.
(2) Every mobile handset has an exclusive IEMI number. No two mobile handsets have the same IEMI number. And every time a mobile handset is used for making a call, besides recording the number of the caller as well as the person called, the IEMI numbers of the handsets used are also recorded by the service provider.

JUDGMENT

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. —

1. The facts, as they emerge from the judgment rendered by the Trial Court at Karkardooma in Sessions Case no.68 of 2005, decided on 21.4.2008, the judgment of High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal no.461 of 2008 decided on 18.3.2009, and the statement of witnesses examined during the course of prosecution of the accused-appellant herein (which have been made available to us, in the form of additional documents), reveal that on 23.7.2005 at about 6.25 p.m., a telephone call was received at Police Station Krishna Nagar, conveying information, that a dead body was lying in House No.F-9/33, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. On receipt of the aforesaid telephone call, Daily Diary no.31A was recorded at Police Station Krishna Nagar. Police officials were immediately deputed to the site. On enquiry it came to be concluded, that the dead body was that of Harish Kumar, resident of House no.303, Gagan Vihar, Delhi. The deceased Harish Kumar, had suffered bullet injuries on the left side of the temporal region, as also, on the left side of the abdomen. Accordingly, First Information Report bearing no.297 of 2005 was registered at Police Station Krishna Nagar for offences punishable under sections 302, 452 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code on 7.1.2006. On 14.12.2007, an additional charge under section 404 of the Indian Penal Code was also framed against the accused-appellant.

2. Minakshi, the wife of the deceased, who was at Chandigarh, reached Delhi on receiving information that her husband Harish Kumar (deceased) had been murdered. She identified the body of the deceased in the mortuary. Minakshi informed the police, that her husband was also with her at Chandigarh. And that, when he left Chandigarh for Delhi, he had in his possession a licensed revolver, a mobile phone (sim) no.9871879824, as also, a sum of Rs.3 lakhs which was taken by him to Delhi, for negotiating a settlement.

3. During the course of investigation, the police was able to ascertain, that mobile phone (sim) no.9871879824 was being used on a mobile handset bearing IEMI no.35136304044030. On further investigation it was found, that the aforesaid mobile handset bearing IEMI no.35136304044030 was being used for mobile phone (sim) no.9818480558 immediately after the murder of the deceased Harish Kumar. Sim no.9818480558 was registered in the name of the accused-appellant. It is through this investigative process, that the police eventually reached the accused-appellant Gajraj Singh, son of Veer Singh, resident at 12/2, Kundan Nagar, Lakshmi Nagar, Delhi. The police recovered from the accused-appellant three mobile handsets, one of which was of Panasonic make bearing IEMI no.35136304044030, i.e., the handset in which sim no.9871879824 was used by the deceased. The police also recovered from the accused-appellant, the licensed revolver of the deceased Harish Kumar. Complete and effective recovery was not made of the sum of Rs.3 lakhs which Minakshi (wife of the deceased Harish Kumar) had stated was in possession of the deceased, at the time he had departed Chandigarh for Delhi. The police, in order to establish that the accused-appellant was in possession of funds in excess of his earnings, referred to a deposit of Rs.9,000/- in the account of the accused-appellant in the State Bank of India, Kundan Nagar Branch, Delhi. The said deposit had been made on 25.7.2005 (the murder in question had been committed two days earlier, on 23.7.2005).

4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined a total of 29 witnesses. A perusal of the statements of the prosecution witnesses reveal, that the conviction of the accused-appellant was sought merely on circumstantial evidence, namely, the use (and possession) of mobile handset bearing IEMI no.35136304044030 on the date of murder itself, i.e., on 23.7.2005 by the accused-appellant for mobile phone (sim) no.9818480558 (which was registered in the name of the accused-appellant), the recovery of the rev