LAW FOR ALL

WHEN discrepancies not pointed out while cross examining the I.O., those can not be considered as failure of prosecution = . The entry register maintained in the Girls Hostel for visitors was never produced in court. B. The finger prints taken from the glass and tea cups recovered from the hostel, to prove that the same had been used by the appellant, did not test positive. C. The rope allegedly used in the crime, was not recovered, nor has any positive evidence been produced to show that the appellant had gone to the hostel armed with a rock. D. A large number of girl students had been staying in the hostel, and none of them were examined. E. The postmortem report does not in any way prove the case of the prosecution, for the reason that the throttling, smothering and breaking of various ribs of the deceased, may not have been caused by a single person. F. The mobile phone recovered from Itarsi (M.P.) was not deposited in the Malkhana. G. The telephone number that had allegedly been purchased by Sonia (deceased), and later recovered, showed some variance. H. The journey from Faridabad to Itarsi and from Itarsi to Faridabad has not been proved. I. The Booking Register of the Taneja Guest House does not prove that the appellant had stayed in the said Guest House. 41. We have examined the aforesaid discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel. It may be stated herein that some of the issues have been explained by the prosecution, however, no attempt was ever made by the defence to put most of these issues to SI Vinod Kumar (PW.20), the Investigating Officer in his cross-examination. It is evident from his deposition that he had, in fact, answered all the questions that were put to him in the cross-examination. However, it is pertinent to clarify that most of these questions that are being currently raised before us were not put to him. For example, he has explained that nobody from the said market had been ready to become the Panch witness for recovery of the mobile phone from Sonu’s shop at Itarsi, and that even Sonu was not ready to do so. Further, no question had been put to him in the cross-examination regarding the different EMEI number of the said mobile phone. The mobile phone that was recovered, bore the EMEI No. 3534000004033852 (Ex.P- 19), though the EMEI number of mobile phone that belonged to Sonia was 3534000004033853. Furthermore, no question had been put as to why the mobile phone, after the recovery, had not been deposited in the Malkhana. In light of such a fact situation, it is not permissible for us to consider such discrepancies. So far as the inconsistencies in the depositions of the witnesses are concerned, none of them can be held to be material inconsistency. 42. The facts so established by the prosecution do not warrant further review of the judgments of the courts below by this court. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.