2. Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for Bhim Kumar @ Raju
submits that the prosecution has failed to establish any supporting evidence
against Bhim @ Raju. Neither any eye witness nor the CCTV footage has
been produced in evidence. Further, the phone allegedly recovered from
Bhim @ Raju was of Samsung make and not Chinese make as per the
seizure memo. PW-1, Pankaj the victim failed to produce any bill of the
aforesaid mobile phone to prove that it belonged to him. Alternatively, it was
prayed that the appellant be released on the period already undergone.
3. Learned APP for the State on the other hand submits that the
Crl.A. 75/2017 Page 1 of 4
impugned judgment suffer from no illegality and the appeal be dismissed.
Source: Indian Kanoon