45 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt rt 12th June, 2009, no telephone call was made from said mobile. C ou This witness has proved call details at Exhibit 196. 46. It can be further seen from the evidence of A.P.I. Patare that before arrest he interrogated Pradip Chandaliya regarding possession of mobile and Pradip Chandaliya disclosed ig h to him that mobile was given to him by his customer Jawedkhan i.e. Accused No.1 towards payment against the bill of hotel. Through the evidence of above witnesses, H 47. prosecution could establish beyond reasonable doubt that – Mobile recovered from Accused No.2 Pradip ba y (i) Chandaliya belonged to deceased Mansi. (ii) given by Accused No.1 Jawedkhan to om B The said mobile identified at article 25 was Accused No.2 Pradip Chandaliya towards the payment against hotel bill. (iii) IMEI number mentioned on the receipt of purchase of mobile (Exhibit 39) exactly tallied with IMEI number visible on the mobile seized from Accused No.2 Pradip Chandaliya. ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:36:29 :::