Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16a. In the cross examination it is brought out that In Ex.P.24 report, he had not mentioned the name of owner, holder and user of Laptop. Holder name would not be available in the Laptop. He admits that he had not mentioned in his report about money related transactions in the said Laptop using particular App. It is elicited that the hash value of the device in the report and hashing is authentic process. It is brought out that since the IO., has not asked the mirror image and the hash value of the hard disc, hence, he has not provided. On checking the URLs of the device he states that there is no bitcoin transaction in the device.

17b. In the cross examination it is suggested that Hash value found in the hard disc and hash value found in the mirror image should be one and the same, the said suggestion is denied. He has stated that hash value would appear only after mirror image of the laptop hard disc. He states that hash value of the mirror image is not mentioned in the mahazar.

Testimony of postal officials:

18. PW.4 Sri M Vishwanath, Post Master of foreign post office he is examined by the prosecution to prove about the letter correspondence made by the investigating agency with him with regard to the parcel seized in this case. He has stated that on 11.1.2021 he has received information from Vijayanagar police station questioned about the parcel addressed to accused, for which he has issued reply on 15.1.2021, he has also sent 'Item Internal Manifest' along with the reply.