46 Receipt Exhibit 39 shows that the said (v) C ou mobile was purchased by Mansi. rt (iv) Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt Accused No.1 Jawedkhan did not explain possession of mobile with him. 48. Thus on recovery of mobile of Mansi, evidence of ig h prosecution witnesses named above is consistent throughout and prosecution has succeeded in establishing the link of recovery of 49. (II) H mobile of Mansi from Accused No.2 with Accused No.1. Recovery of simcard in the mobile of Mansi at the ba y instance of Accused No.1. On the recovery of simcard in the mobile phone of om Mansi prosecution examined PW­12 Mukram Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, PW­23 Vinod Kharat, PW­26 Mayur Chandaliya, A.P.I. B Patare (PW­20) and P.I. Sopan Borse (PW­32). PW­12 Mukram Khan did not support the prosecution and his evidence needs to be kept out of consideration. PW­23 Vinod was working in Hotel Pancham owned by Accused No.2 Pradip Chandaliya. He was examined to show that simcard given by PW­26 Mayur to his father Pradip was ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:36:29 :::