Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. PW-6 is Sh. Jayesh Bhardwaj, Lab Assistant (Physics), CFSL, Delhi, who deposed that on 29.05.2014, a request was received from DCP, Vigilance Branch for recording of sample voice of Sh. Akshay Singh and on 09.06.2014, he alongwith Ms. Anuradha Dey recorded the sample voice of Sh. Akshay Singh in the presence of one witness namely Ct. Sikander in a fresh micro SD card Ex.P1 through digital voice recorder of make SONY and after recording the sample voice, the micro SD card was handed over to the IO, who seized the same through seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. 12.1. In his cross-examination, PW-6 confirmed that there is no SOP (standard operating procedure) or working manual which is required to be followed for the purpose of taking voice sample as had been done in this case. He further deposed that he has not told the IO to mention the fact that Sony Recorder was used for recording of sample voice in any of the seizure memos. He further confirmed that purpose of recording of the sample voice was speaker identification. PW-6 admitted that the voice files similar to the sample files can be altered or modified on any computer using various softwares. He further admitted that the hash value is computed to maintain the authenticity and integrity of the evidence when it is seized or received for the examination as per the NICFS Manual, Chapter-24 which is Mark-PW6/D4.

13. PW-7 is SI Amit Kumar, who proved the detailed bio-data Ex.PW7/A of HC Digambar Singh which was retrieved from office computer installed at IT Centre, Delhi by using his user ID. He also proved the certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW7/B in support of the aforesaid bio-data.

14. PW-8 is Sh. R. K. Srivastava, Principal Scientific Officer, CFSL, who deposed that on 01.07.2015, he received one DVD marked as Exhibit-Q1 in sealed condition from physics division for computation of hash value and he reported that DVD Exhibit Q1 was found fully functional and undamaged and mentioned its MD5 hash value in his report i.e. Ex.PW8/A. He further deposed that on 05.12.2018, he received two sealed parcels from Vigilance Branch for providing forensic copies/mirror image of these two exhibits alongwith hash value and he prepared the copy of DVD marked as Exhibit-Q-1 which was marked as "copy of Exhibit Q-1". PW-8 computed the MD5 hash value of the DVD marked as "Copy of Exhibit Q-1" but same did not match with the hash value of DVD marked as Exhibit Q-1. He further deposed that the data of both the aforesaid DVDs was validated on the basis of forensic parameters. PW-8 deposed that the hash value of two individual files i.e. "2.mov" and "6.mov" were computed and matched and the forensic clone of micro SD card marked as Exhibit S-1 was prepared/validated and was marked as "I Exhibit S-1" whose hash value was computed and matched with that of Exhibit S-1 which were mentioned in his report dated 28.12.2018 i.e. Ex.PW8/B. 14.1. In his cross-examination, PW-8 produced Standard Operating Procedure running into two pages i.e. Ex.PW8/DA. To a specific question as put by Ld. Defence counsel, PW-8 deposed that mirror image of a media is the forensic replica of the media. To a specific question as put by Ld. Defence counsel, PW-8 replied that he gave opinion on the functionality of the DVD Exhibit Q-1 and not on the specific files and he had only computed the hash value of the DVD. He further deposed that since no previous hash value of the media was provided, the hash value computed by him could not be compared/verified and the hash value was provided by him as it was desired in the forwarding letter which can be used for authentication purpose for further reference. When the attention of the witness was drawn on page no. 2 of his worksheet which is part of Ex. PW-8/DD that the date of last access is 05th Feb 2014, the witness replied that it means that file was accessed on that date.

16.1. In his cross-examination, PW-10 deposed that he can not admit or deny the suggestion that in case of tampering in the video recording, there would be tampering in the audio recording also. He further deposed that he had examined the audio recording by segregating it and also side by side with the video recording. To a specific question, he deposed that he did not demand hash value of the audio video recording from the investigating agency and did not note down the hash value of the recording at the time of examination. He volunteered that this is the duty of computer forensic expert of their lab. He admitted that hash value is one of the parameter for detecting tampering/ editing. He volunteered that it is so only if the hash value is provided by the investigating agency at the time of submission of the exhibits in the lab.