Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

25. The prosecution, in an attempt to prove that the person who entered into the ATM centre and attempted to use the ATM card of the deceased was A2, has made reliance on Ex.P.112 which is a report given by one Mr.H.J.Trivedi, Scientific Officer, Computer Forensic Division, Directorate of Forensic Science, Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat State. We need to remember at this juncture that the CCTV footage recovered from the ATM centre and the CCTV footage covering the re-enactment by A2 during investigation were compared by Mrs.Trivedi and in his report he has stated that the person covered in the original CCTV footage is probably A2. When this document was marked in evidence, the defence had objected to the same on the ground that it is inadmissible in evidence in the absence of examination of Mr.H.J.Trivedi. In Ex.P.112, Mr.Trivedi has observed as follows:-

26. In our considered view, this document [Ex.P.112] cannot be read in evidence without the examination of Mr.Trivedi, the Scientific Officer, Computer Forensic Division, since Section 293 of Cr.P.C. would not cover Ex.P.112. Further the opinion of Mr.Trivedi is based only on physical measurements and not by means of any scientific analysis. His opinion speaks of only probability and there is no certainty. In our considered view, Ex.P.112 is inadmissible in evidence and the same is therefore rejected.