BRIJ KISHORE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 26.04.2010, noting that the appeal had reached for hearing and learned counsel had not appeared, Court notice was issued to learned counsel informing him that the appeal would be listed for hearing today. The notice has been served and learned counsel as above has appeared and argued the appeal.

(2.) Vide impugned judgment and order dated 20.09.2008 the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/392/411/34 IPC.

(3.) At the outset we express our displeasure at the manner in which the impugned judgment has been written. It is prolix. As a result, the issues which arose have got blurred. We also express our displeasure at the lack of knowledge of the learned Trial Judge, who has ignored the mandate of Section 65B of the Evidence Act while recording evidence and through the testimony of Const.Rajvir PW-14 has exhibited printout details of mobile telephone number 9899545415 as Ex.PW-14/A and Ex.PW-14/B. The learned Trial Judge appears to be totally unaware as to how a document in electronic form has to be proved. It has to be proved either by means of a certificate issued by the person/authority in whose custody the device in which the document was stored in an electronic form that the printout generated has been through the device and reflects an information stored in electronic form in the ordinary course or through the testimony of the person who generates the printout from the device in which the same is stored. It cannot be exhibited when a police officer tenders it saying that he procured it.