Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

20.2 He denied the suggestion that he has done tampering and replacement of the CD at the instance of his client. He also stated that he has not submitted the CD replicated on 09.12.205 as nobody asked for the same. He also stated that it is not possible to ascertain as to whether the conversation recorded in the CD is the first copy from the original device or the copy from the CD. It is pertinent to mention here that CD was copied twice firstly on 09.12.2015 and secondly on 07.01.2016. The hash value has been given for the CD copied on 07.01.2016 but no hash value has been given to the CD copied on 09.12.2015. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that every time CD is read the hash value changes if the write blocker is not used while reading the CD. Nothing has been brought on record in order to show that CD which was taken by the expert from the court on that day was a CD which was lying on court record or which was taken for copying the same. Both the hash values are not preserved for the This is a digitally signed order.