Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. Ld. counsel for accused no. 2 has also advanced arguments on the similar lines. He further argued that the place of posting of the PCR Van Z-99 was at Bakhargarh Mor which is at a distance of more than 15 km from the place of alleged incident and the prosecution has not placed any evidence on record to show that the PCR Van Z-99 had gone to the place of incident on 31.12.2010. It was also argued that the experts examined by the prosecution cannot be termed as experts as they had not been notified u/s 79 A of IT Act and hence, no reliance can be placed on their reports and their testimonies. It was further argued that PW17 did not mention the hash value of the digital file in his report and also did not mention the date of creation of the file. It was argued that PW17 only mentioned the date of last modification which is not in consonance with the alleged date of incident. It was argued that PW17 in his cross examination has admitted that the duration of the video file no. V0120003.AVI is 1:05:18 whereas the actual duration of the video file in the memory card produced before the court is 05 minutes and 18 seconds. It was also argued that the date of modification of the video file is 28.06.2010 as per the statement of PW1 which is much prior to the date of alleged incident. He has also argued that the statements of PW6 and PW7 are full of contradiction and cannot be safely relied upon. It was also argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand allegedly made by accused no. 2 and it was submitted that as per the copy of DD entry register containing DD no. 2 dated 24.12.2010 Ex.DW2/C available at page no. 193 in the inquiry file Ex. PW18/E (D-

46. 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 PW17 Sh. Gautam Roy in his report Ex. PW17/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 no. 1, he could not tell about the device which was used for recording the digital files in the memory card. He also admitted that he had not mentioned the date of creation of digital files in his report. He further admitted that the duration of file no. V0120003.AVI was 01:05:18 as mentioned in his report. However, the memory card produced by the prosecution in the court shows that the duration of the video file V0120003.AVI was only 05 minutes and 18 seconds only. PW17 also did not mention the hash values of the digital files contained in the memory card sent to him, although he had mentioned the hash value of hard disks sent to 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 also deposed in his cross examination that he had analyzed the properties of digital files examined by him but he had not mentioned the same in his report. He also admitted that it is not possible to tell how many times the files have been modified prior to the last date of modification. He also admitted that the last date of modification is part of properties of the file. He also admitted that he had not mentioned the last date of modification of the file in his report. The cross examination of PW17 Gautam Roy thus shows that he himself has contradicted his own report regarding non tampering of the memory cards examined by him. A bare perusal of the report Ex.PW17/A shows that it does not mention the tools/software used for examining the memory cards. The report also does not mention the technology used for detecting tampering in the memory cards. The report also does not mention experimental details regarding detection of tampering and no description or observations of findings has been given in the report regarding detection of tampering. There are no illustrations, photographs, waveforms, spectographs, screen shots etc placed with the report. Thus the report is bereft of the necessary details. Hence, I do not deem it appropriate to place reliance on his report Ex. PW17/A and the same is accordingly rejected.