(37) S.C.No.463/2009 (Judgment) adduced the evidence of PW­19 Police Constable Ravindra Bahule and PW­20 API Shri Gautam Patare who were the members of one of the squads to trace out the culprits and it seems that they noticed the IMEI number of the mobile telephone of Mansi on the mobile which was in possession of accused No.2 by name Pradip Chandaliya. It appears that the said mobile was seized from Pradip Chandaliya by API Shri Patare which appears to be major break through in respect of this crime. So far as the recovery of said mobile from accused Pradip Chandaliya is concerned, during the course of his argument, Advocate Shri Ghanekar has not disputed this fact. He has also not disputed that accused Pradip handed over that mobile to Police. Therefore, it seems that from accused Pradip Chandaliya said mobile of Mansi was seized. Accused Pradeep has failed to offer any explanation by way of his statement under Section 313 of Cri.P.C as to how said mobile came with him. Therefore, on the basis of the available evidence, inference needs to be drawn. 68/­ Besides aforesaid evidence the prosecution has adduced the evidence of P.I. Shri Bagul who has explained in detail about the recovery of muddemal at the instance of accused Javed and Ram Bodkhe. It also appears that he wrote letters to