LexGAJRAJ versus STATE (NCT) OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 12 S.C.R. 701 GAJRAJ v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI (Criminal Appeal No.2272 of 2010) SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 [R.M. LODHA AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860: s.302 - Murder - Conviction for - Dead body of the victim found in a house - His mobile phone, /icenced revolver and a sum of Rs. 3 lacs were missing - C Investigation revealed that /MEI of the mobile handset of the victim was used for the SIM number of accused immediately after the alleged murder - Based on .circumstantial evidence, trial court convicted the accused which was upheld by High Court - On appeal, held: The evidence produced by the D prosecution was based on the irrefutable fact that every mobile handset has an exclusive /MEI number- Every time a mobile handset is used for making a call, besides recording the number of the calltf as well as the person called, the /ME( numbers of the handsets used are also recorded by the E service provider - Evidence on record indicated that the SIM number of the victim became dead on the date on which he was murdered - It was from the use of his mobile handset that the police traced the accused - The use of mobile handset of the victim on which the accused made calls from his own F ·registered mobile phone (SIM) immediately after the : occurrence of the murder was a legitimate basis for the identification of the accused - The nexus of the accused with the victim at the time of occurrence stood fully substantiated from the said SIMI/ME/ details - The revolver of the victim G was also recovered from the accused - Prosecution was able to prove the charges - Conviction upheld - International Mobile Equipment Identity (!MEI). 701 H 702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 12 S.C.R. A Tele-communication: International Mobile Equipment Identity (/MEI) - Identification of accused with the aid of /MEI. Evidence: Denial in evidence - Recovery of revolver and mobile of the victim from the accused - Signatures of the 8 brother and father of the accused on the recovery memo - The brother of the accused denied having signed the recovery memo - He asserted that his signatures were taken on blank papers, which were then used in preparing the recovery memo - Similar statement made by father of the accused - Held: It C is apparent that the brother and father of the accused would make attempts to ensure the acquittal of the accused - Despite that neither brother nor father of the accused disputed the veracity of their signatures on the recovery memos - It was, therefore, apparent that their signatures, on the recovery memos, were authentic - If the signatures of the brother and D father of the accused were taken forcibly by the investigating agency, not only the accused but also his brother and his father would have raised a hue and cry and would have made representations to-the concerned authorities pointing out, that the police had obtained their signatures on blank papers - E Their statements did not reveal any such action at their hands - Therefore, there is no doubt that they had duly affixed their signatures on the recovery memos, by which the revolver of the deceased, as also, the mobile handset of the victim were recovered at the behest of accused - Penal Code, 1860 - F s.302. The prosecution case was that a dead body was found in a house in Delhi. On enquiry, it was found that dead body was of husband of PW-23. The statement of G wife of the deceased was recorded in which she stated that when her husband had left Chandigarh for Delhi, he had in possession a licenced revolver, mobile phone SIM (9871879824) as also a sum of Rs.3 lakhs which was taken by him to Delhi for negotiating a settlement. During H the course of investigation, the police was able to GAJRAJ v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI 703 ascertain that mobile phone (9871879824) was used on A a mobile handset of the deceased bearing IMEI no.35136304044030. Further investigation revealed that the said IMEI was used for the mobile phone SIM 9818480558 belonging to the accused-appellant immediately after the murder of the victim-deceased. This B helped the police in apprehending the appellant and in recovery of three mobile handsets one of which bore IMEI no.35136304044030. The police also recovered from the appellant, the licensed revolver of the deceased. The amount of Rs.3 lakhs was not found, however, there was c a deposit entry in the account of the appellant of Rs.9000 two days af
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.