Lapse in collecting tower location of mobile(s) while
obtaining CDR
51. During investigation, the investigating officer was
apprised of mobile numbers of the deceased Mithilesh
Kumari (D-1) and the accused respondent. PW-19 was
produced to prove the CDR of one of the mobiles, though
both CDRs were part of police papers collected during
investigation. However, interestingly, the CDRs do not
disclose tower location of the concerned mobiles which
could have helped in pin-pointing as to whether the two
mobiles at the relevant time were in close proximity of each
other, and whether D-1’s mobile had moved to the place of
residence of the accused from where it was allegedly
recovered. Non-collection of tower location of the two
mobiles is a serious investigational lapse in the facts of the
case.
52. Further, strangely, the CDR of D-1’s mobile was
not even exhibited. Interestingly, PW-20 (i.e., the
investigating officer) does not even disclose whether D-1’s
mobile was operative or not after 31.08.2011 as per its
CDR.
53. In our view, CDRs of the two mobiles with corresponding tower locations would have been critical in revealing:
a. whether the accused’s mobile at the relevant
time was near the location where the dead
bodies of the two deceased were found; and
b. whether D-1’s mobile was active any time
after 31.08.2011; if yes, whether she received
any call after 31.08.2011; if yes, from what
location.
54. The importance of clarity on the aforesaid
questions cannot be undermined as they had the potential
to either corroborate or demolish the prosecution story.
Because if the mobile of the deceased was operative after
31.08.2011, PW-1’s statement that it was found switched
off would have been negated. Besides, its tower location
would have indicated where the person in possession of that
mobile was located. This was crucial because the
prosecution story hinges on the circumstance that the
deceased and the accused were together on 31.08.2011.
Therefore, if the tower location of the two mobiles had
disclosed that they were not in close proximity to each other
on the fateful day, some explanation would have been
required as to why it was so, when, according to the
prosecution, owners of those two mobiles were together on
the fateful day. Assuming that the accused may not have
carried her mobile to the scene of crime, tower location of
D-1’s mobile could have reflected upon the truth of the
prosecution story. Here there is no explanation by the
prosecution as to why the tower location was not collected.
In our view, lack of information in that regard is a serious
investigational lapse.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 166 of 2019
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VsANCHLA @ CHANCHLA
Author: MANOJ MISRA, J.
Citation: 2026 INSC 1074
Dated: October 01, 2026.
Read full judgment here: Click here.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment