STATE OF M.P. Vs. PINKI KUSHWAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed seeking interim custody of seized article i.e. mobile phone of respondent No. 2.

(2.) It is submitted that respondent No. 2 is an advocate and in Sessions Trial No. 55/18 tried before 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, respondents have been acquitted of charges under Sections 302, 34 of IPC. State has filed an appeal being aggrieved by such judgment. It is submitted that while disposing the trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge has imposed a condition that the mobile phone will be kept in the malkhana until the period of limitation of filing of appeal. It is submitted that appellant is also an advocate and has been acquitted as prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, interim custody of the mobile phone of the respondent No. 2/applicant may kindly be given to him as his phone contains important personal documents as well as personal information.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the case of the prosecution is based on the call details and the report of the cyber cell besides evidence of Vikram Singh Tomar to whom deceased Vishal had confessed that present respondent along with co-accused had administered salphas to him. It is submitted that mobile phone is an important link in the chain of evidence and if its custody is handed over to the respondent then tampering with the I.M.E.I. number and other specifications of phone which are vital piece of evidence for the prosecution cannot be ruled out. In view of such facts, it is submitted that such application may be dismissed.