based are, (i) a mobile hand-set allegedly belonging to the deceased, was recovered at the behest of the accused. The brother of the deceased Ajay, however, did not identify the said mobile hand-set as the one belonging to the deceased. (ii) A discovery memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was recorded, by which the applicant had pointed out various places where the offence is alleged to have been committed and this has been held by the learned trial court to be admissible under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, though it was found to be inadmissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. (iii) Clothes were recovered at the behest of the accused which were found to be blood stained. The blood group on the said clothes could not be determined, but the blood stains were determined as human blood and (iv) a CCTV footage was obtained from the petrol pump which was downloaded by PW 14 - Gorakh and which was proved by PW 15 - Santosh. PW 15 - Santosh was the attendant on the petrol pump who on the basis of the CCTV footage had identified the applicant who had come to the petrol pump for filling the petrol at about 10 p.m. Accompanied by the deceased and another person. The mandatory requirements of obtaining a certification to the production of the CCTV footage was not followed. Thus, no certificate had been produced while producing the CCTV footage. Moreover, during the recording of the evidence of PW 14 - Gorakh, the trial Judge has observed that the memory card could not be opened and the trial court, therefore, not viewed the CCTV footage. The trial court further held that the circumstance that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused had been established. Along with above circumstances, the prosecution has also relied upon the circumstance of motive.
