Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

27. Thus, it can be conclusively held that prosecution has not been able to connect the present appellants with the crime on the basis of CCTV footages recovered from the devices installed at the house of Lavlesh Badhwani and Police Station, Lanji, district Balaghat. Thus, this part of evidence has no probative value.

28. Remaining two CCTVs were installed in the houses of Sunil Kankariya and Anil Kankariya. The electronic data recovered from these two sources now requires analysis and appreciation. The draft letter dated 11.12.2017, through which these two storage devices (DVRs), marked as Articles "A" and "B", were sent to Cyber Cell, Digital Forensic Laboratory, Bhopal, very clearly shows that the hash value of these recordings were not mentioned in the letter. Ex.P-23 shows that these two hard-discs were received in Cyber Cell, but even this letter makes no reference to the hash values with which the data of these devices was secured at the time of seizure. Though Ex.P-23 mentions the hash values of the data recovered at Cyber Cell, but for the non-availability of initial hash values for comparison, it cannot be established that data recovered by Cyber Cell was the same as was available in the devices at the time of seizure.

32. In the circumstances of the present case, it is established that two DVRS, which was sent for Cyber Forensic Lab were not put under any sealed cover nor their initial hash values were collected. Ashok Khalko (PW-10) claims to have exported the electronic data of two DVRs marked as Articles "A" and "B" to another electronic device marked as Article "C" but from his statements and also from the documents prepared by him, it is clear that the hash value of data transferred in device of Article "C" was not collected by this witness. His statements further do not reveal that the device of Article "C" was put under any sealed cover and for this documents Ex.P-26 and Ex.P-30 can be referred too. In the statement of Mehul Kankariya (PW-9) recorded on 11-05-2022, there is a remark made by the trial Court that the hard disc marked as Article C was produced in sealed status from Malkhana but there is no description of the authority, whose seal was found affixed on this article.

34. From this certificate, it can be gathered that "true copy" referred to in certificate was not described in detail and therefore, no assumption can be made that witness was referring to hard disc Article "C" as true copy of the data. Further, the hash value of this hard disc marked as Article "C" is not disclosed either in the certificate of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act or in the documents, Exs.P-26 and P-30, prepared after exporting the data in the hard disc of Article "C".