Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

45.Perusal of the record shows that during investigation, the CBI has sent CD Ex. PW7/C to Computer Forensic Division, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Central Bureau of Investigation, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi for video CD examination regarding whether the CD has been tampered with or not however, as per report no. CFSL­2015/G­345 dated 30.12.2015 regarding result of examination, the opinion could not be offered by Scientific Expert as the DVD do not have the required video quality for video examination in the existing system available with the laboratory at that time. Since Dr. D.V. Reddy did not make any specific observation or comment in his report Ex. PW7/A about non­use of Johnson Pipes in the bore­well in question and the make of the other pipes used therein, the DVD was the best evidence before the court which could have rendered some help to facilitate the court to view as to what was the nature of pipes installed in the bore­hole in question but even the CFSL was not able to offer any opinion in this regard, for the reasons stated above. The conduct of the Investigating Officer clearly reflects his lackadaisical and callous approach in investigating the present matter as there is nothing on record to shows that he ever tried to get the DVD examined from other government laboratory when CFSL failed to give any opinion on the DVD on the ground that DVD do not have the required video quality for video examination in the existing system available with the laboratory at that time. The cross examination of Dr. D.V. Reddy also reflects that the CD was not prepared at the spot who also deposed that he did not replay the recording to show that the same was properly recorded at the spot. PW­3 Vikas Rathi, Junior Engineer (Civil), Vigilance Department, Delhi Jal Board who was the member of the Inspecting Team also admitted during cross examination that after inspection, the device was not displayed nor the recording was shown to show as to the recorded material or that it was properly saved. Though it has come in the cross examination of PW­6 Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar Nalli that except the last leg of the recording which was of about less than a minute, Dr. D.V. Reddy did not play the whole recording after completion of inspection but this witness did not say what he has seen therein. It is pertinent to mention that even the prosecution did not bother to play the CD so placed on record by the CBI, before the court during the deposition of PW­7 Dr.D.V. Reddy who was the best witness being author of the CD who could throw light on the contents of the CD. The cross examination of PW­7 Dr. D.V. Reddy reflects that he saved the files in Mp4 format and was aware that the name of the file can be changed. Despite the same, he prepared the CD in his office at NGRI, Hyderabad as admitted by him during cross examination and not at the spot. The bore­well in question was inspected by Dr. D.V. Reddy on 20.09.2013 however, he prepared his report Ex. PW7/A on 24.02.2014. There is no explanation offered by Dr. D.V. Reddy why he took such a long time in preparing the report. Even the Investigating Officer did not bother for six months to enquire about the report from Dr. D.V. Reddy in this regard. The conduct of PW­7 Dr.D.V. Reddy shows that he conducted the inspection of the bore­well in question and prepared his report in a very casual manner.