GAJRAJversusSTATE (NCT) OF DELHI

                   [2011] 12 S.C.R. 701

                          GAJRAJ                              A
                             v.
                 STATE (NCT) OF DELHI
            (Criminal Appeal No.2272 of 2010)
                  SEPTEMBER 22, 2011
                                                              B
   [R.M. LODHA AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.]

       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 after the murder.

      Based on circumstantial evidence, the trial court
convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 404 IPC
and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for       D
life and to pay a fine of Rs.50000 for the offence
punishable under Section 302, IPC. The appellant was
also sentenced to undergo rigoi:.ous imprisonment for
three years and to pay Rs5000 for offence punishable
under Section 404, IPC. He was, however, acquitted of the    E
charges framed against him under Sections 380 and 452,
IPC. The High Court dismissed the appeal against
conviction, however, modified the sentence inasmuch as
in the event of non-payment of fine imposed on the
appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302,      F
IPC, the High Court reduced the period of imprisonment
in lieu thereof from three years to six months.
    In the instant appeal, the appellant contented that he
had been implicated on the basis of allegedly being in       G
possession of mobile handset bearing IMEI
No.35136304044030; that the said mobile handset with
the said IMEI number, was traced by the police on the
disclosure of the wife of the deceased (PW23) and that
such projection in the evidence produced by the              H
   704     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011) 12 S.C.R.


A prosecution was to fabricate a false story to implicate the
   appellant; that there was discrepancy in the evidence of
   PW23 who while deposing before the trial court had
   stated that her husband had called her at around 12 noon,
   and thereafter, at around 3 p.m.; the call details revealed
s that two incoming calls were received from a Chandigarh
   telephone, at around the time expressed by PW23 and
   that as per the deposition of PW23, it should have been
   outgoing calls from mobile phone (SIM) no.9871879824
   (as wife of the deceased had claimed to have received the
c· said two calls from her husband), yet as per call records,
   these were incoming calls; based on this discrepancy, it
   was contended for the appellant, that the factum of
   tracing the appellant from the mobile phone (SIM) of the
   deceased was a complete concoction at the hands of the
   investigating agency; it was also sought to be suggested,
0
   that if the investigating agency's theory of reaching the
   appellant was based on the call details of mobile phone
   (SIM) no.9871879824, the same was unacceptable; that it
   was natural to infer, that the police could not have
E reached the appellant on the basis of call details of phone
   no. 9871879824; and therefore, the question of recovery
   of the revolver, as also, the mobile handset (owned by the
   deceased), from his possession, did not arise and they
   must have been planted on the appellant to implicate
   him.
F
        Dismissing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. Even though the accused-appellant was
  fully justified in pointing out the discrepancy referred to
G by him in so far as the statement of PW23 was concerned,
  yet the manner in which the appellant came to be
  identified and traced, (during the course of investigation)
  fully established the veracity of the prosecution case. The
  evidence produced by the prosecution was based on one
  irrefutable fact, namely, every mobile h~ndset has an
H
         GAJRAJ v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI              705


 exclusive IMEI number. No two mobile handsets have the A
 same IMEI 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 IMEI numbers
of the handsets used are also recorded by the service
 provider. The said factual position has to be kept in mind B
 while examining the prosecution evidence. The first step
 in the process of investigation was the receipt of
 information from PW23 that the deceased was using
 mobile phone (SIM) no.9871879824. Evidence on record
 indicated that the said SIM number became dead on c
,23.7.2005, i.e., the date on which deceased came to be
 murdered. In the process of investigation it then
emerged, that the mobile handset bearing IMEI
No.35136304044030 was used with mobile phone (SIM)
no. 9818480558. This happened soon after the murder on 0
23.7.2005 itself. The same SIM was used to make calls
from the same handset upto 2.8.2005. Through the
statement of PW22, Nodal Officer, Bharati Airtel Limi~ed,
it came to be established, that mobile phone (SIM)
no.9818480558 was registered in the name of accused-
appe!lant. It is from the use of the mobile handset bearing E
IMEI no.35136304044030, that the police came to trace the
accused-appellant. The use of Mobile handset bearing
IMEI no.35136304044030 on which the accused-appellant
made calls from his own registered mobile phone (SIM)
no.9818480558, immediately after the occurrence of the F
murder of deceased was a legitimate basis for the
identification of the accused-appellant. The accused-
appellant was arrested on 6.8.2005. The nexus of the
accused-appellant with the deceased at the time of
occurrence stood fully substantiated from the said SIM/ G
IMEI details. In the said sense of the matter, the
discrepancy in the statement of PW23 became
insignificant. The process by which the accused-
appellant came to be identified during the course of
investigation, was legitimate and unassailable. The IMEI H
    706    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 12 S.C.R.

A number of the handset, on which the accused-appellant
  was making calls by using a _mobile phone (SIM)
  registered in his name, being evidence of a conclusive
  nature, cannot be overlooked on the basis of such like
  minor discrepancies. In fact even a serious discrepancy
s in oral evidence, would have had to yield to the said
  scientific evidence. (Para 10] (713-E-H; 714-A-H; 715-A-B]

         1.2. The revolver and the mobile handset were,
    allegedly, recovered at the instance of the accused-
C   appellant. PW12, the brother of the appellant denied
    having signed the recovery memo. He asserted that his
    signatures had_ been taken on blank papers, which had
    then been used in preparing the recovery memo. A
    similar statement was made by PW13, the father of the
    appellant. It is apparent that PW12 and PW13 would have
D   left no stone unturned to ensure the acquittal of the
    accused-appellant. Despite that neither PW12 nor PW13,
    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
E   of the brother and father of the accused-appellant had
    been taken forcibly by the investigating agency, not only
    the accused-appellant but also his brother PW12 and his
    father PW13, would have raised a hue and cry. They
    would have made representations to the concerned
F   authorities pointing out, that the police had obtained their
    signatures on blank papers. The statements of PW12 and
    PW13 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
G   revolver of the deceased, as also, the mobile handset of
    Panasonic make bearing IEMI no.35136304044030 were
    recovered at the behest of accused-appellant. In view of
    that there is no merit even in the second contention
    advanced at the hands of the accused-appellant. [Paras
H   11, 12] (715-D-E; G-H; 716-A·D]
           GAJRAJ v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI                   707

       1.3. The amount of Rs.9,000/-, deposited by the A
  accused in his bank account out of the total sum of Rs.3
  lakhs may not be a justifiable basis to establish, that the
  alleged crime was committed by the accused-appellant.
  But then, keeping in mind overwhelming evidence
  produced by the prosecution in establishing the crime, B
  namely, the recovery of revolver of the deceased from
  accused-appellant along with live and spent cartridges,
  the recovery of mobile handset of Panasonic make
  bearing IMEI No.35136304044030 from the custody of the
  accused-appellant, and the fact that the accused- c
  appellant was using the same soon after the murder of
  the deceased with mobile phone (SIM) no.9818480558
  which was registered in the name of the accused-
  appellant (and that he continued to use it till his arrest), .
  leaves no room for any doubt, that the prosecution has 0
  brought home the charges as have been found to be
. established against the accused-appellant, by the trial
  court as also by the High Court. [Para 14) [717-A-D]
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
 No. 2272 of 2010.                                                 E

     From the Judgment and Order dated 18.03.2009 of the
 High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 461 of 2008.

     Sanjay K. Agarwal for the Appellant.
                                                                   F
       J.S. Attri, P.K. Dey and Sadhna Sandhu (for Anil Katiyar)
 for the Respondent.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
     JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 1. The facts, as they G.
 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 durin g the course of H
     708     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 12 S.C.R.


 A 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,
 8 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,
 C 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
 D additional charge under section 404 of the Indian Penal Code
   was also framed against the accused-appellant.

         2. Minakshi, the wi(e of the dt:oceased, who was at
    Chandigarh, reached Delhi on receiving information that her
  E 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)
· F 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
 G 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
 H Harish Kumar. Sim no.9818480558 was regi~tered in the name
          GAJRAJ v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI                      709
            [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
of the accused-appellant. It is through this investigative process,   A
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              B
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)         c
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          D
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 staternents
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          F
(sim) no.9818480558 (which was registered in the name of the
accused-appellant), the recovery of the revolver of the deceased
Harish Kumar along with live and spent cartridges, as well as,
the deposit of Rs.9,000/- in the account of the accused-
appellant with the State Bank of India, Kundan Nagar Branch,          G
Delhi.

     5, The Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, Delhi
disposed of Sessions Case No.68 of 2005 on 21.4.2008. It was ·
sought to be concluded, that the prosecution had been able to . H
    710     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011) 12 S.C.R.

A establish its case against the accused-appellant for offences
  punishable under section 302 and 404 of the Indian Penal
  Code. The accused-appellant was, however, acquitted of the
  charges framed against him under sections 380 and 452 of the
  Indian Penal Code. Thereupon by an order dated 28.4.2008,
B the accused-appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous
  imprisonment for life, and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, for the
  offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code (in
  the event of default of payment of fine the accused-appellant
  was required to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for an
c additional period of three years). The accused was also
  sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years,
  and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under
  section 404 of Indian Penal Code (in case of default of
  payment of fine, the accused-appellant was required to undergo
D further rigorous imprisonment for four months). The aforesaid
  sentences, awarded by the Trial Court, were to run concurrently.

       6. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Trial Court,
  the.-accused-appell;mt preferred Criminal Appeal No.461 of
  2008 before the High Court of Delhi. The appeal preferred by
E the accused-appellant, came to be dismissed on merits, on
  18.3.2009. The sentence awarded by the Trial Court was
  however modified, inasmuch as, in the event of non payment
  of fine, imposed on the accused-appellant for the offence
  punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, the High
F Court reduced the period of imprisonment in lieu thereof, from
  three years to six months.

        7. The accused-appellant has approached this Court by
  filing the instant appeal so as to assail the orders passed in
G Sessions Case No.68 of 2005 (dated 21.4.2008) and in
  Criminal Appeal no.461 of 2008 (dated 18.3.2009).

         8. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
    accused-appellant raised three contentions. The first of the
    aforesaid contention was the basis of his primary emphasis.
H
             GAJRAJ v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI                711
               [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.)
  The contention advanced was, that the accused-appellant had A
•been implicated on the basis of allegedly being in possession
-~f mobile handset bearing IEMI No.35136304044030. In so far
  as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it was the
  submission of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant,
  that the aforesaid mobile handset with the said IEMI number, B
  was traced by the police on the disclosure of the wife of the
  deceased Harish Kumar. And also because the accused-
  appellant was using mobile phone (sim) no.9871879824 on the
  aforesaid handset. Since the accused-appellant was using a
  mobile phone (sim) registered in his (Gajraj Singhs) name on c
  the mobile handset of the deceased (Harish Kumar), the police
  was able to ascertain his identity, and thereupon reach him. The
  object of the learned counsel, while advancing the first
  contention, was to establish that the instant projection in the
  evidence produced by the prosecution, was to fabricate a false 0
  story to implicate the accused-appellant. According to learned
  counsel, discrepancy in the prosecution evidence would
  establish the objective of the first contention. The sole
  discrepancy sought to be pointed out, was based on the -
  statement of Minakshi, the wife of the deceased Harish Kumar. E
  Minakshi while deposing before the Trial Court as PW23, had
  stated that her husband had called her at around 12 noon, and
  thereafter, at around 3 p.m. It was sought to be asserted, that
  the call details from exhibit PW25/DX reveal, that two incoming
  calls were received from a Chandigarh telephone, at around
  the time expressed by Minakshi PW23. It was pointed out, that F
  as per the deposition of PW23, it should have been outgoing
  calls from mobile phone (sim) no.9871879824 (as Minakshi
  had claimed to have received the said two calls from her
  husband), yet as per Exhibit PW25/DX, these were incoming
  calls. Based on the aforesaid discrepancy, it was the vehement G
  contention of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant, that
  the factum of tracing the accused-appellant from the mobile
  phone (sim) of the deceased Harish Kumar was a complete
  concoction at the hands of the investigating agency. It was also
                                                                 H
    712       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [20111 12 S.C.R.


A sought to be suggested, that if the investigating agency's theory
  of reaching the accused-appellant was based on the call details
  of mobile phone (sim) no.9871879824, the same becomes
  clearly unacceptable. According to learned counsel, it would be
  natural to infer, that the police could not have reached the
B accused-appellant on the basis of call details of phone no.
  9871879824. And therefore, the question of recovery of the
  revolver, as also, the mobile handset (owned by the deceased
  Harish Kumar), from his possession, does riot arise. It was
  sought to be suggested that they must have been planted on
c the accused-appellant to implicate him.
       9. In so far as the first contention advanced at the hands
  of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant is concerned,
  learned counsel also invited our attention to the reasoning
  depicted in the impugned order passed by the High Court
D (dated 18.3.2009), wherein the accused-appellant has been
  linked to the incident on the basis of the following reasoning:

          "26. Holding that the call record Ex.PW-22/A evidences
          that two calls from Chandigarh were received on the mobile
E         n.umber 9871879824 in the afternoon of 23. 7.2005,
          corroborates the testimony of the wife of the deceased who
          was staying at Chandigarh on 23. 7.2005 that she had
          talked to the deceased over telephone in the afternoon of
          23.7.2005, which in turn establishes that the mobile number
F         9871879824 was being used by the deceased on the date
          of his death; that the call records Ex.PW-22/A and
          Ex.PW22/B establishes that the handset having IEMI
          No.350608101231170, which handset was used by the
          accused on a regular basis, was used by the deceased
G         on 10th and 11th July, 2005 and that this establishes that
          the deceased and the accused were in touch with each
          other; the call record Ex.PW-22/B evidences that the
          handset which was used by the deceased on the date of
          his death was in possession of the accused soon after the
          death of t.he deceased and that the same is a strong
H
          GAJRAJ v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI                     713
            [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.)
     incriminating circumstance against the accused; that the       A
     prosecution has been able to establish that the handset
     which was used by the deceased before his death and the
     revolver which was the weapon of offence. were recovered
     at the instance of the accused .... ."
                                                                    B
It is the assertion of the learned counsel for the accused-
appellant, that the accused-appellant could never have been
traced on the basis of the mobile phone (sim) no.9871879824,
as no call was ever made by the deceased Harish Kumar from
the aforesaid mobile number to the accused-appellant.
Likewise, no call was ever made by the accused-appellant from       C
his mobile phone (sim) no.9818480558 to the deceased Harish
Kumar. As such it is submitted, that the conclusions drawn by
the Trial Court, as also, by the High Court, are clearly
unacceptable, and deserve to be set aside.
                                                                    D
      10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the first
contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the
accused-appellant, as have been brougbt out in the foregoing
two paragraphs. We are however of the view, that the
submission advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-         E
appellant cannot be accepted, keeping in mind the evidence
produced by the prosecution. Even though we are of the view,
that the learned counsel for the accused-appellant is fully
justified in pointing out the discrepancy referred to by him, in
so far as the statement of Minakshi PW23 is concerned and           F
the reasoning rendered by the High Court, as has been
extracted hereinabove, may not be fully justified, yet we have
no doubt, that the manner in which the accused-appellant came
to be identified and traced, (during the course of investigation)
fully establishes the veracity of the prosecution case. The         G
evidence produced by the prosecution is based on one
irrefutable fact, namely, 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
                                                                    H
    714     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011) 12 S.C.R.


A   the person called, the IEMI numbers of the handsets used are
    also recorded by the service provider. The aforesaid factual
    position has to be kept in mind while examining the prosecution
    evidence. The first step in the process of investigation was the
    receipt of information from Minakshi (the wife of deceased
s   Harish Kumar), that the deceased was using mobile phone
    (sim) no.9871879824. Evidence on record indicates, that the
    aforesaid sim number became dead on 23.7.2005, i.e., the
    date on which deceased Harish Kumar came to be murdered.
    In the process of investigation it then emerged, that the mobile
c   handset bearing IEMI No.35136304044030 was used with
    mobile phone (sim) no. 9818480558. This happened soon after
    the murder of Harish Kumar, on 23.7.2005 itself. The same sim
    was used to make calls from the same handset upto 2.8.2005.
    Through the statement of R.K. Singh PW22, Nodal Officer,
    Bharati Airtel Limited, it came to be established, that mobile
0
    phone (sim) no.9818480558 was registered in the name of
    accused-appellant Gajraj Singh. It is from the use of the mobile
    handset bearing IEMI no.35136304044030, that the police
    came to trace the accused-appellant Gajraj Singh. It is only this
    aspect of the matter which is relevant for the purpose of present
E   controversy. The use of Mobile handset bearing IEMI
    no.35136304044030 on which the accused-appellant made
    calls from his own registered mobile phone (sim)
    no.9818480558, immediately after the occurrence of the
    murder of deceased Harish Kumar, was a legitimate basis for
F   the identification of the accused-appellant. The accused-
    appellant was arrested on 6.8.2005. The nexus of the accused-
    appellant with the deceased at the time of occurrence stands
    fully substantiated from the aforesaid sim/IEMI details. In the
    aforesaid sense of the matter, the discrepancy in the statement
G   of Minakshi PW23, pointed out by the learned counsel for the
    accused-appellant, as also, the reasoning rendered by the High
    Court in.the impugned judgment becomes insignificant. We are
    satisfied, that the process by which the accused-appellant came
    to be identified during the course of investigation, was
H   legitimate and unassailable. The IEMI number of the handset,
          GAJRAJ v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI                    715
            [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
on which the accused-appellant was making calls by using a         A
mobile phone (sim) registered in his name, being evidence of
a conclusive nature, cannot be overlooked on the basis of such
like minor discrepancies . In fact even a serious discrepancy
in oral evidence, would have had to yield to the aforesaid
scientific evidence. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we      B
find no merit in the first contention advanced at the hands of
the learned counsel for the accused-appellant.

     11. The second contention advanced at the hands of the
learned counsel for the accused-appellant was, that there were
only two independent witnesses associated with the r~covery C
of the revolver, and the mobile handset bearing IEMI
no.35136304044030 (belonging to deceased Harish Kumar),
                                                                        • '   I·' ,
namely, Yuvraj PW12 and Veer Singh PW13. The said revolver
and the mobile handset were, allegedly, recovered at the ~­
instance of the accused-appellant Gajraj Singh. Yuvraj, while D
appearing as PW12, denied having sigl(led the recovery memo ..
He asserted that his signatures had been taken on blank
papers, which had then been used in preparing the recovery
memo. A similar statement was made by Veer Singh PW13.
Pointing out to the statement made by the accused-appellant E
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it was submitted, that the accused-
appellant had clearly maintained, that the investigating officer(s)
in the case, had intentionally and deliberately implicated the
accused-appellant.
                                                                    F
     12. We have examined the second submission advanced
at the hands of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant.
Before evaluating the statement of Yuvraj PW12 and Veer
Singh PW13, it is necessary to keep in mind their relationship
with the accused-appellant. While Yuvraj PW12 is the brother G
of accused-appeHant, Veer Singh PW13 is his father. It is
apparent, that they would leave no stone unturned to ensure the
acquittal of the accused-appellant. Despite the aforesaid, it is
clear from the submissions advanced at the hands of the
learned counsel for the accused-appellant, that neither Yuvraj H
    716     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A PW12 nor Veer Singh PW13, disputed the veracity of their
  signatures on the recovery memos. It is, therefore, apparent that
  their signatures, on the recovery memos, were authentic. If the
  signatures of the brother and father of the accused-appellant
  had been taken forcibly by the investigating agency, we have
B no doubt in our minds, that not only the accused-appellant but
  also his brother Yuvraj PW12 and his father Veer Singh PW13,
  would have raised a hue and cry. They would have made
  representations to the concerned authorities pointing out, that
  the police had obtained their signatures on blank papers. The
c statements of Yuvraj PW12 and Veer Singh PW13 do not reveal
  any such action at their hands. We have, therefore, no doubt in
  our minds, that they had duly affixed their signatures on the
  recovery memos, vide which the revolver of the deceased, as
  also, the mobile handset of Panasonic make bearing IEMI
  no.35136304044030 were recovered at the behest of
0
  accused-appellant Gajraj Singh. In view of the above, we find
  no merit even in the second contPntion advanced at the hands
  of the accused-appellant.

       13. The third and the last contention advanced by the
E learned counsel for the accused-appellant was in respect of
  deposit of Rs.9,000/- by the accused-appellant in his account
  with the State Bank of India, Kundan Nagar Branch, Delhi. It
  was the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-
  accused, that Minakshi PW23, the wife of deceased Harish
F Kumar had pointed out, that the deceased was having in his
  possession a sum of Rs.3 lakhs, when he departed Chandigarh
  for Delhi. The depiction of deposit of Rs.9,000/-, according to
  learned counsel, was a futile attempt at the hands of the
  prosecution to show, that the accused-appellant had deposited
G a part of money taken by him from deceased Harish Kumar,
  so as to establish his nexus with the crime. It was asserted that
  the prosecution could not show how the accused-appellant
  disposed of the balance amount.

       · 14. It is not possible for us to accept even the third
H
          GAJRAJ v. STATE '(NCT) OF DELHI                   717
            [JAGDISli SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
contention advanced at the hands of learned counsel for the        A
accused-appellant. We are satisfied that the amount of
Rs.9,000/-, deposited by the accused in his bank account out
of the total sum of Rs.3 lakhs may not be a justifiable basis to
establish, that the alleged crime was committed by the
accused-appellant. But then, keeping in mind overwhelming          B
evidence produced by the prosecution in establishing the crime,
namely, the recovery of revolver of the deceased from accused-
appellant along with live and spent cartridges, the recovery of
mobile handset of Panasonic make bearing IEMI
No.35136304044030 from the custody of the accused-                 c
appellant, and the fact that the accused-appellant was using the
same soon after the murder of the deceased Harish Kumar with
mobile phone (sim) no.981'8480558 which was registered in
the name of the accused-appellant (and that he continued to
use it till his arrest), leaves no room for any doubt, that the
                                                                   0
prosecution has brought home the charges as have been found
to be established against the accused-appellant, by the Trial
Court as also by the High Court.

     15. For the reasons recorded hereinabove we find no merit
in the instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.       E

D.G.                                       Appeal dismissed.