Point of Law: Prosecution has neither examined any witness from the company of the sim card or mobile nor any certificate is produced under section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act and therefore, such evidence is inadmissible.

JUDGMENT :

A.J.DESAI, J.

1. By way of this appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, the appellant-accused has challenged the judgement and order dated 04.01.2013 passed by the learned District and Sessions Court (Special Court), Surendranagar in Special Atrocity Case No.53 of 2010 (New Special Atrocity Case No.22 of 2012), by which, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to undergone sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment; under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to undergo sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment and under section 404 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to undergo sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment

2. Facts, emerge from the records of the case, are as under :

2.1 That one Nirmalsinh Balvantsinh Parmar resident of Village: Muli, Taluka: Surendranagar lodged an FIR with Muli Police Station on 01/08/2010 stating that when he along with his friends had gone for daily morning routine in the sim of village : Muli itself at around 6:30 hours, at the distance of 2 kms from Muli, he found a deadbody of a girl lying under a tree. He also disclosed that he found two rexine bags near the deadbody and when all of them saw the body, they found that she was done to death by several knief blows and found a cover of knief lying there. They also found an I-card of the girl of Uma PTC College wherein name of the deceased was written as “Muniya Shital B.”. PSO handed over the investigation of a crime to Dadhubhai Kanjibhai Vasva, who was working as PSI at Muli Police Station, who prepared Inquest Panchnama and sent deadbody for post-mortem at Government Hospital of Muli and handed over further investigation to another PSI Keshavlal Parshottambhai Doshi - PW-36. Having revealed about the identity of the deceased, the parents of the deceased, who are resident of Ahmedabad, were called at Muli and on completion of formalities, deadbody was handed over to them. The statements of parents of the deceased were recorded on 01/08/2010. Investigating Officer also recorded statements of the roommates of the deceased, with whom, the deceased was residing at Rajkot on the same day.

2.2 Since there was no eye-witness to the crime and the deceased was permanent resident of Ahmedabad and was studying at Rajkot, the case was initially investigated by LCB, Surendranagar. As per the say of PSI (LCB, Surendranagar) Pareshbhai Ishawarbhai Solanki, PW-33, having received some information about the probability of involvement of the present appellant-accused, the appellant came to be arrested by the Investigating Officer on 03/08/2010 from Ahmedabad. Several statements were recorded and ultimately charge-sheet was submitted before the competent court, who in turn committed the case to learned Sessions Judge having jurisdiction to try the offences in question.

2.3 Charge Exh-9 came to be framed by learned Sessions Judge on 15/03/2011, which was denied by the accused. Prosecution proceeded with the trial. Prosecution examined in all 38 witnesses whereas the appellant-accused did not examine any witness in his defence. Further statement u/s.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the learned Trial Court. Learned Sessions Juge after scrutinising the deposition of the witnesses and evidence produced and proved by the prosecution came to the conclusion that the appellant-accused is only person, who is involved in the crime and had com