In CRA-D-914-DB-2015(O&M)-PUNJ HC- Call details and mobile company’s record is one of the best pieces of evidence to find out location of accused, his communication with others and proof of residence used by him to procure sim from mobile operator: P&H HC
Justices G. S. Sandhawalia & Jagmohan Bansal [21-10-2022]

Read Order: Gurpreet Singh & Another v. State of Punjab and Others 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, October 31, 2022: While dealing with an appeal against acquittal in a murder case, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that the call details and mobile company’s record is one of the best pieces of evidence to find out the location of the accused, his communication with others and proof of residence used by him to procure sim from the mobile operator. 

While addressing the aspect of delay in lodging the FIR in this case, the Bench of Justices G. S. Sandhawalia and Jagmohan Bansal held, 

“ Trial Court is supposed to look into facts and circumstances which delayed registration of FIR. If the reasons explained for delay are cogent, delay can be ignored and prosecution story cannot be brushed aside simply on the ground that there is delay in registration of FIR.”

The instant appeal was filed by the brothers of Prabhbir Singh (deceased) against the judgment of the Trial Court whereby the respondents who were arrayed as accused in an FIR under Sections 302, 364, 201, 34 of IPC, were acquitted. 

The deceased was married to the third respondent and had two brothers who were the appellants in this appeal. The deceased had a minor daughter. His sister was married to one Kuwinderjit Singh. Kuldip Singh son of Kirpal Singh, an Advocate and former Sarpanch of village Kathunangal happened to be cousin of the deceased whose father was a former MLA.  

Suddenly, the deceased went missing, as a result, his brother notified the Police, while his cousin Kuldip Singh lodged an FIR against one Navinderjit Singh @ Sunny (second respondent) and the wife of the deceased alleging that Navinderjit Singh was in illicit relations with the latter, despite of the disapproval of the family of the deceased. 

The Trial Court acquitted all the accused/respondents and the appellants filed a present appeal seeking setting aside of aforesaid judgment passed by the trial Court. 

The Court, from a perusal of the testimony of the informant-Kuldeep, noted that it was not believable because he was not a family member of the deceased, nor did he belong to the same village still he was aware that respondents had illicit relations with each other. It was also noted that he lodged the FIR after a delay of about 20 days. 

“From the perusal of allegations of Kuldip Singh (PW-2), cross-examination, sequence of events, it transpires that Kuldip Singh being an Advocate, former Sarpanch of the village was aware of the nitty gritty of the legal system. He misused his position and past experience of being Sarpanch fabricated a story wherein two persons were implicated. The police never attempted to trace the source of information of Kuldip Singh and proceeded blindly relying upon him”, the Court held. 

The 13-year old daughter of the deceased stated in her statement that her mother had two cell phones and that three days before her father went missing, she found her mother with the third respondent and out of fear she did not question her. She stated that she later on came to know that her mother and Navinderjit Singh had pushed her father into a canal and killed him. 

Next, the Court looked into the testimony of the husband of the deceased’s sister who deposed that the wife of the deceased left her daughter with him and his wife, a few days before the deceased went missing and took her (daughter) back, a day after the deceased went missing. He also deposed that she mentioned the factum of the deceased going missing. 

From the daughter’s statement, the Court observed that it was “surprising and unbelievable” that she did not disclose the fact of having seen her mother with another man, to her father, grandmother or uncle (Fufa). 

“It was quite natural, had she seen her mother with Navinderjit Singh, she must have disclosed the fact of illicit relations of her mother to everyone as soon as she came to know about missing of her father and at-least registration of FIR. She tendered her statement on 17.07.2011 i.e. after the arrest of her mother… It is quite natural that being 13 years old, she had been brainwashed by relatives who had joined hands, to depose against her mother”, the Bench added. 

Further, the Court stated that in the name of statement of a child, two mobile phones were disclosed whereas the child denied even disclosure of one mobile phone. “Two phones were mentioned in the statement so that it might be shown that she [wife of deceased] was carrying one phone which was used to maintain illicit relations”, the Bench added. 

The Court was of the view that the witnesses were trying to supplement the version of the story cooked by Kuldip Singh and the appellants. 

It was also added that the call details and mobile company’s record is one of the best pieces of evidence to find out the location of the accused, his communication with others and proof of residence used by him to procure sim from the mobile operator. 

“It would be appropriate to note that a child though 13 years old cannot be expected to memorise the wrong mobile number of her mother. This fact becomes more important when a child is disclosing not one but two mobile numbers of her mother.It shows that Samanpreet Kaur was a tutored witness”, the Bench held. 

Regarding the delay in lodging of theFIR, the Bench opined that the Trial Court is supposed to look into facts and circumstances which delayed registration of FIR and that if the reasons explained for delay are cogent, delay can be ignored and prosecution story cannot be brushed aside simply on the ground that there is delay in registration of FIR. 

Accordingly, the present leave to appeal was dismissed.