Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. Then urging on the quality and quantity of the evidence lead by the Prosecution, he contended that the alleged mobile Spl.C.15/2013 conversation between accused and the PW.2 being a primary evidence, before the said conversation was transmitted to a C.D. it was the duty of the PW.7 to ensure that whether the requisite precautions were taken to see that so called conversation is not tampered with as alleged transmission to the C.D. is a secondary evidence. He contended that the failure of the PW.7 to collect the said mobile of PW.2 and its memory card as well as the further failure of the said I.O. in recording the hash value of the said communications, whether it is audio or visual and failure to issue certificate under Sec.65B of the Evidence Act and also failure of the PW.7 to obtain FSL report on the identification of voice of the accused totally defeats the whole process of investigation. To substantiate his said arguments he referred to the decisions reported at AIR 2015 SC 180 (Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer), AIR 2010 SC 965 (Tukaram S. Dighole vs. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate), MANU/SC/0057/2015 (Tomaso Bruno vs. State of U.P.), MANU/IN/0106/2019 ( Hillwood Imports and Exports Pvt. Ltd., and Others vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle­2) and MANU/SCOR/45933/2017 (In Re:

27. In Tomaso Bruno's case where the trial Court as well as Hon'ble High Court convicted the appellants for the commission of evidence under Sec.302 of IPC based on the circumstantial evidence and also evidence of a witness who witnessed the CCTV footage, turning down the concurrent finding of conviction Hon'ble Court held that when the Prosecution failed to produce the very CCTV device or its stored footage, it was error on the part of the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court to convict and to sustain the conviction in appeal based on the evidence of the witness who saw the CCTV footage. In Hillwood Imports & Exports Pvt. Ltd., case laying emphasis on the "hash value" of contents of a pen drive Hon'ble High Court of Cochin observed that unless a Court is satisfied with security of "data integrity" with reference to the hash value of electronically generated evidence Spl.C.15/2013 it is not safe to accept such evidence. In that case at para 10 Hon'ble Court explained meaning of the term hash value and also the mode in which Investigation Officer is required to collect the electronically generated evidence and how he has to get it examined through a forensic expert. In reference to Prajwala Letter case Hon'ble Supreme Court, with the assistance of committee of experts, gave greater thrust as to how the artificial intelligence, deep learning, machine learning etc., have to be used in day to day trial and collection of secured data integrity.