Nabil murder: Police did not submit crucial mobile phone as evidence

The police, who investigated the death of Nabil Mohammed in a fight at Mir Chowk in 2015, have ignored several vital pieces of evidence which could have otherwise nailed the accused.
For representational purposes (Express Illustrations)
For representational purposes (Express Illustrations)

HYDERABAD: The police, who investigated the death of Nabil Mohammed in a fight at Mir Chowk in 2015, have ignored several vital pieces of evidence which could have otherwise nailed the accused. “One thing is clear that the Investigating Officers were not diligent enough in conducting the investigation,” the court pointed out. The key witnesses in the case also turned hostile and didn’t speak against the accused in court. The accused had initially informed Nabil’s family that he fell down and suffered seizures while performing bike stunts, but after a video of the fight surfaced, the police registered a murder case.

The accused were arrested and police had also seized an iPhone, which had a recording of the fight, but the same was not sent for forensic examination. Experts, who examined the CD in which the video of the fight was downloaded from YouTube, stated that the evidence was secondary evidence (CD) and it’s not the primary evidence (iPhone).

The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) also admitted to not having received a cell phone and their report doesn’t reveal what the primary source was from which the disc was copied, the cour t mentioned. Though there is no material evidence against the accused, the compact disc containing the fight is a crucial material document, but the prosecution failed to prove the same through cogent evidence.

The FSL report is of no use because it was not connected with the primary evidence either by producing a 65-B certificate (under Evidence Act) or with the seized iPhone. “For reasons best known to him (Investigating Officer), he did not send the iPhone to the FSL for analysis and examination and to connect the same with the compact disc, which is allegedly downloaded from YouTube,” the court noted. During the trial, the IO also admitted that he didn’t contact either YouTube or Google to know the source of supply of video clipping. He also didn’t refer any seized electronic items to cyber crimes sleuths who have contacts with Google, YouTube, Facebook and other electronic social media platforms.

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com