Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

45.Perusal of the record shows that during investigation, the CBI has sent CD Ex. PW7/C to Computer Forensic Division, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Central Bureau of Investigation, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi for video CD examination regarding whether the CD has been tampered with or not however, as per report no. CFSL­2015/G­345 dated 30.12.2015 regarding result of examination, the opinion could not be offered by Scientific Expert as the DVD do not have the required video quality for video examination in the existing system available with the laboratory at that time. Since Dr. D.V. Reddy did not make any specific observation or comment in his report Ex. PW12/A about non­use of Johnson Pipes in the bore­well in question and the make of the other pipes used therein, the DVD was the best evidence before the court which could have rendered some help to facilitate the court to view as to what was the nature of pipes installed in the bore­hole in question but even the CFSL was not able to offer any opinion in this regard, for the reasons stated above. The conduct of the Investigating Officer clearly reflects his lackadaisical and callous approach in investigating the present matter which is apparent from the deposition of PW­12 Dr. D.V. Reddy who deposed that at the spot, the investigating officer did not insist him to transfer the recording from palmtop to laptop in the presence of inspecting team and also the video recording was not played before the inspecting team nor the DVD was prepared at the spot nor IO asked him to bring the laptop as the CD was of poor video quality. During cross examination also, he deposed that he did not replay the recording to show that the same was properly recorded at the spot. PW­2 Vikas Rathi, Junior Engineer (Civil), Vigilance Department, Delhi Jal Board who was the member of the Inspecting Team also admitted during cross examination that after inspection, the recording was not replayed to show that the recording had been properly saved. The cross examination of PW­ 12 Dr. D.V. Reddy reflects that he saved the files in Mp4 format and was aware that the name of the file can be changed. Despite the same, he prepared the CD in his office at NGRI, Hyderabad and not at the spot. The bore­well in question was inspected by Dr. D.V. Reddy on 20.09.2013 however, he prepared his report Ex. PW12/A on 24.02.2014. There is no explanation offered by Dr. D.V. Reddy why he took such a long time in preparing the report. Even the Investigating Officer did not bother for six months to enquire about the report from Dr. D.V. Reddy in this regard. The conduct of PW­12 Dr.D.V. Reddy shows that he conducted the inspection of the bore­well in question and prepared his report in a very casual manner. Thus, the DVD has failed to connect the accused persons in the commission of the alleged offences.