Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

44. It is now well settled that the opinion given by the experts in a case is not binding on the court. The court has to apply its own mind and only when the court concurs with the opinion of the experts, the same graduates into the opinion of the court. In the present case prosecution has relied upon the three reports of CFSL. The report regarding non tampering of the memory card has been given by PW21 Sh. Gautam Roy in his report Ex. PW21/A. He appeared in the witness box to prove his report and deposed that there was continuous flow of video and there was not stoppage, pause, etc and therefore, there was no tampering in the five memory cards examined by him. However, when he was cross examined by counsel for the accused, he admitted that every digital file carries its unique hash value and although he had mentioned the hash value of hard disks sent to him but he has not mentioned the hash value of any of the file of the memory cards examined by him. However, no reason has been given by him for not mentioning the hash value of the digital files contained in the memory cards Ex. 6/1 to Ex. 6/5 examined by him. He further admitted that all the digital files also carry their own properties which include the time and date of creation as well as modification of these files. He deposed that he had looked into the properties of the files and prepared the screen shots of the same in his file. He further deposed that he had brought his file but the screen shots were not available in his file and volunteered that the same were saved in his computer. Again, there is no satisfactory explanation forthcoming as to why copies of screen shots were not kept by him in his file or produced in the court. He also volunteered that in his report he has mentioned the duration against memory card Ex. 6/2, its time was actually the time of creation of digital file. However, a bare perusal of the report Ex. PW21/A would show that no date of creation or modification of files in memory cards Ex. 6/1 to Ex. 6/5 have been mentioned in the report. He has also admitted in his cross examination that he cannot tell through which instrument the recording was done in the memory cards. He further admitted that in the absence of examining original recording device conclusive opinion regarding the tampering or non tampering of digital files cannot be given. The cross examination of PW21 Gautam Roy thus shows that he himself has contradicted his own report regarding non tampering of the memory cards examined by him. Hence, I do not deem it appropriate to place reliance on his report Ex. PW21/A and the same is accordingly rejected.