Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

60. Prosecution has examined PW-4 PSI Rajendra Bankar, who at the relevant time was working as PSO at Peth Beed Police Station. He deposed that on 24.05.2020, he was working as PSO. On that day, Sandip Jaydatta Kokane (PW-1) came to police station and told him that his brother Santosh had killed his wife Sangita, sons Siddesh and Kalpesh with bat and stone and thereafter put Kalpesh in water barrel. He had brought accused to police station with him. Accordingly complaint (Exhibit-52) was recorded as per his say. He and complainant put their signatures on the complaint. Portion mark 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' were recorded as per say of complainant, they were given Exhibit-53. He accompanied I.O. to gather information regarding movement of {56} CC 1-25.doc accused from the spot and to collect CCTV footage. Panchas were with them. They went to Mauli chowk. They found CCTV cameras installed outside the house of Tiwari. On inspecting footage collected from camera No. 1 and 2 accused was noticed. That footage was copied and pasted in the memory card of Toshiba company. Hash value was obtained. Memory card was seized and sealed in presence of panchas. When they went ahead they noticed CCTV camera outside the house of Sarda. They inspected the CCTV footage. Accused was seen in it. The footage was copied and pasted in the memory card. Hash value was obtained. Memory card was seized and sealed in presence of panchas. Thereafter they came near Diamond Confectionery shop. They noticed CCTV camera outside the shop. They inspected the CCTV footage. Accused was noticed in it. The footage was copied and pasted in memory card. Hash value was obtained. Memory card was seized and sealed in presence of panchas. He had obtained training in computer operations, collection of data from electronic devices, storing the data, obtaining hash value etc. He had knowledge of the aforesaid things. He issued certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act (Exhibit-54).

61. He went along with I.O. to Rashtriya Nagari Sahakari pat- Sanstha on 30.05.2020. They inspected the CCTV cameras there. Accused was located in the footage. He was noticed going {57} CC 1-25.doc towards the spot. Said footage was copied and pasted in memory card. Its hash value was obtained. Memory card was seized and sealed in presence of panchas. Thereafter he gave certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act (Exhibit-55). He has mentioned regarding device used by him for collecting the footage. He has also filed hash value number obtained from screenshots regarding hash value from his computer. They are part of certificate (Exhibit-55). The footage were collected as they were. The instruments used for collecting the footage were in proper condition. Accused noticed in the footage and present in the Court is one and the same.

62. In the cross he denied that he has deposed false that informant came with accused to Police Station and that portion mark 'A', 'B', 'C', and 'D' were not told by informant. It did not happen that he asked the question to the complainant and he answered and accordingly complaint was recorded. He knows typing. He has certificate of MSCIT. He denied that complaint at Exhibit-52 was not recorded as per the say of informant. He further stated that while collecting hash value he used Karens Hasher software, the same is mentioned in panchnama (Exhibit-

47). Screenshots did not bear his signature. Panchas were called by I.O. prior to going for panchnama. He had seen accused from the distance of 50 feet. He admitted that during training they {58} CC 1-25.doc were taught how to recognize a person. A person can be identified on observing his eyes, noes and ear. He volunteered that a person can be identified from his body language, head movement, hand movement etc. He observed CCTV cameras when he went with I.O. In his presence. I.O. did not take the ownership document of the house. For conducting both panchnamas he carried with him computer, memory card reader, 03 memory cards, his mobile of OPPO company and external hard-disc. There are 3 to 4 types of Hard-drive. No separate panchnama was conducted that the memory card was empty. He volunteered that it is mentioned in the panchnama that memory card was empty. On being questioned "Whether a new folder was created after taking footage and whether it was named?" he answered that "footage was taken in hard-drive. It was attached to computer and from there it was directly taken in memory card." Footage can be edited before taking hash value. Footage was firstly collected in hard-drive and thereafter it was transferred in the memory card. Original footage is in DVR. Clone copy was not done by them. Clone copy is not available with them. He denied that he edited the footage in his laptop. He admitted that screenshot of hash value was not signed by him, it was signed by I.O. There is no date below his signature at Exhibit- 54 and 55. He denied that since he was not owner of the DVR he {59} CC 1-25.doc had no authority to issue certificates at Exhibit-54 and 55. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing false that CCTV footage was taken in his OPPO mobile, that he deposed false regarding hash value and no footage was collected from the house of Tiwari, Sarda and Rashtriya Nagari Sahakari Pat-Sanstha and he is deposing false.