is also not reliable as it is full of material omissions and contradictions in respect of the phone calls and the arrest of the accused persons. The learned Counsel further submitted that though it is the case of the prosecution that the complainant, the father of the victim, had received a number of phone calls in the night intervening between 26.8.2006 and 27.8.2006, the witnesses on the point of phone calls made by the accused persons from the coin box phones did not support the case of the prosecution. PW4 Sangram Ashok Solanki, the owner of the Coin Box Phone at Kolhapur, PW5 Deepak Suryawanshi, owner of Coin Box Phones at different places in Kolhapur, have turned hostile in respect of the identification of the accused and phone calls made by them from the coin box are not proved. It is further submitted that the police have collected CDR, in respect of the phone calls i.e., phone of Sadashiv, also other phone Nos.222583 and 325881 from hotel Sadguru for which prosecution has examined PW12 Pandurang Mahadev Bapat. However, it is further submitted that the original copies of CDRs are not produced and, therefore, the call records could not be exhibited and read in evidence. It is further submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the place where the boy was kept after he was kidnapped. As per the case of the prosecution, Akshay was kidnapped at late evening on 26.8.2006 and was kept in one flat at Chavan building. However, PW1 Kusumaben Chavan, the owner of the Chavan building and so also PW2 Jaya @ Ashwini Anil
