“Even believing the said call details to be genuine by accepting the alternative argument of learned defence counsel, even then, the said call details will smash the prosecution case. Upon the careful scrutiny of call details Ex. PG/2 of the mobile phone of the deceased from 01.04.2014 to 30.04.2014, it is evident that on 28.04.2014, as many as six phone calls were exchanged between the deceased and the accused, out of which five calls were given by the accused, whereas one call was given by the deceased to accused. The said calls were after 8.30 p.m. Onwards and one of the calls lasted for 443 seconds. Not only this, on 29.04.2014, as many as 13 phone calls were exchanged between the accused and the deceased and one of such calls took place at 8.16 p.m., which lasted for 503 seconds (eight minutes and twenty three seconds) and it was an incoming call on the mobile of the deceased from the mobile of accused. Not only this, on 30.04.2014, as many as four times, the deceased and the accused talked to each other. From the said call details, it is not a case whereby the deceased was the recipient of the entire calls, rather at times, she also rang up the accused. Had the accused being a jilted caller, having one sided affair, having crush for the deceased, then under the normal course of events, the chain reaction from the deceased would have been not to receive calls or to snub the caller. It is highly unacceptable that she was being harassed by the accused from his mobile in as much as some talks have been initiated at her behest. The longevity of the calls point out towards the friendly relationship between them, which negatives the story of the prosecution that some caller was threatening the deceased with dire
