Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

25). CDs have also been identified by the witness during his testimony.

During cross examination, PW-58 denied that he is not an expert or experienced to submit the report about voice matching or that he has not examined 2500 cases. Witness claimed himself to be an expert in computer forensic, mobile forensic, crime scenes, soil, paint, copyright products, shirt button comparison, automobile paint. He got the training in different fields. He admitted that no diploma or course is done in voice examination, however, according to PW58, he had undergone six months training in voice analysis. The suggestion has been denied that he or the CFSL Chandigarh was not competent to examine the electronic records. According to the witness, report furnished by him is accurate and there is no margin of error but also admitted that error may be possible. The questioned conversations were heard several times. There are 10-15 parameters for audiotary analysis. Hash value of questioned CDs was not checked and same was not required for voice comparison. It is admitted that State vs Sunita & Ors. Page no. 60 of 213 Ex.PW58/DA along with certificate under Section 65 B Evidence Act was submitted by him.

During cross examination, PW-59 admitted that she is not having any diploma or degree in data extraction but she has undergone training in State vs Sunita & Ors. Page no. 61 of 213 computer and cyber forensic. The suggestion has been denied that she is not an expert or qualified in mobile data extraction. The blank hard-disk was provided by the police to the Director, CFSL, Chandigarh. The suggestion has been denied that no data was extracted by her or supplied in the Hard- disk. The suggestion has also been denied that police manipulated the data or that hash value of the extracted data do not match with transferred data existing in the original device. Three instruments were used for extracting the data i.e. Universal Forensic Extraction Device and physical analyser (hardware and software), mobile check (hardware and software) and FTK (software). Witness has denied the suggestion that her report is false and fabricated or that she is deposing falsely at the instance of SIT.