reason, which led to their death. The incident in this case had happened on 22.9.2001 and the alleged recording was also stated to be done on the same day. It is indisputable case that though MO2 was recovered by the Police on 22.8.2001, the same was produced before the Sub Divisional Magistrate only on 2.11.2001 and further from the records, it is clear that the Police Officer, who recovered MO2 has not complied with the requisite formalities under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. It is indisputable that MO2 was not sealed by the Police Officer when it was recovered. In the light of these indisputable factual aspects, the Sessions Court has rejected the above said plea of the prosecution as per the impugned order dated 25.4.2018 rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-V, Kollam on Crl.M.P.No.444/2018 in S.C.No.723/2007. The main reason of rejection as can be seen from the impugned Annexure-A1 order is that admittedly MO2 was not sealed by the Police Officer, when it was recovered and there are no answers to the specific issues as to who was having the custody of MO2 for the period from 22.9.2001 (date of alleged recovery of MO2) to 2.11.2001 (date of production of the said article before the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court). The learned Sessions Court has anxiously considered the issue that as MO2 was not seen when it was recovered and there are no clear materials to show that as to whose safe custody the MO2 was remaining and as more than sixteen years have passed after recovery of MO2, there is no point in allowing the plea of the prosecution and the entire exercise in sending such an unsealed material object containing the alleged audio type recording would be a futile
