47 According to PW­26 Mayur he rt inserted in the mobile by him. Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt C ou purchased three simcards from a mobile shop. One was given by him to his friend Mayur Jain. He handed over two simcards to PW­23 Vinod Kharat who was working in their hotel. He denies that he had given simcard to his father. To that extent ig h contradiction is proved through the evidence of Investigating Officer. Mayur however admits that simcard which was given to his father was purchased by him. The evidence of this witness H suggests that simcard which was found in the mobile recovered from Accused No.2 Pradip Chandaliya given by Accused No.1 ba y Jawedkhan was purchased by Mayur and it further suggests that mobile handset given by Jawedkhan to Pradip Chandaliya was om without simcard. 50. The next important witnesses on recovery of simcard B are PW­20 A.P.I. Patare and PW­32 P.I. Borse. It is stated by A.P.I. Patare that he interrogated Accused No.2 Pradip Chandaliya regarding possession of mobile handset with him and during interrogation Pradip Chandaliya stated that simcard in the said mobile was given to him by his son Mayur. A.P.I. Patare seized the simcard under Panchanama. ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 The said simcard was ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:36:29 :::