the accused and one of the deceased's wife were recovered from the pointing out of the revisionist at that time mobile phones were not password protected. Applicant never told the password to the Investigating Officer. Investigating Officer opened the whatsapp massage and taken the screen shot of the whatsapp massage from the other mobile phones and then printout this massages on printed paper. These whatsapp massages are transcribed in printed paper. Printed whatsapp message are placed on record. On 27.10.2018, an application was moved by the prosecution with request to that at the time recovery of the mobile phone password was told by the revisionist but that password was not write down in G.D. or any other papers, at that time the mobile phone was password protected and digitally locked. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that during investigation, Police Officer locked the recovered phone from their own password. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that neither the Police Officer asked the password nor enquired about the fingerprint. Now, he is compelled to tell the password of the mobile phone/fingerprint. It is also contended that police custody remand period was only limited for the recovery of wire alleged to be used for the murder of deceased. It is also argued that because the mobile phone was not password protected at the time of recovery if the alleged mobile phone which is now digitally locked will not be unlocked by password told by the revisionist or he refuse to tell the password then presumption against himself shall be drawn and it will be prejudice to the revisionist and presumption and adverse interference under Section 114(G) of the Evidence Act shall be taken, now by this impugned order, revisionist is compelled to tell the password which is not in the knowledge of the revisionist, so, his revision is liable to be allowed.
