Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. PW-5 Sh. Anshuman Chaturvedi was working with M/s. Primus Telecommunication India Pvt. Ltd since 1997 as network manager. He deposed about the letter Ex. PW-5/1 given to the CBI, informing about the identity of the user (M/s. Oswal Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd.), to which IP Block 61.16.235.144/29, which was a static IP, was allocated. He also proved the letters dated 10.03.2005 and 26.04.2005. During cross-examination, he informed that they had given internet lease line connectivity, which remained online 24 hours, and did not require any login or logout. Upon specific question as to if computer network could be used remotely, he informed that it was possible if the software to this extent had been installed on the system or if the user is having the password access or if the computer is hacked by a hacker. When asked if the mail server could give the entire information including password, he informed that the information can be given only if the server is configured to maintain log. He accepted that the person using different computers can have access on the same IP address through the server.

47. The genuineness and authenticity of this hard disk was verified by the CFSL. PW-3 from the CFSL duly established that the said computer system was capable of internet access and the keywords related to [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected] were also found in the temporary internet files / folder of the said hard disk. It is not the case of the accused that such temporary files had been falsely created or put by some miscreant unauthorisedly to falsely implicate him. It would not lie in the mouth of the accused to claim at the stage the final arguments that the CFSL report is insufficient, in as much as it does not disclose what all software tools had been used by it recover the deleted files or to ascertain the details of temporary internet files. When the expert witness was examined in the court, the accused had all the opportunity to ask all the facts, details and clarifications from him, but if he failed to do so at the relevant time, he cannot take benefit of his own wrong and to now claim that the report is insufficient. The report on record is only a 'final opinion' given by the technical experts and all other details including the tools used, calculations made, softwares used etc. are maintained in the CFSL office, which could be called if required through a particular witness by the accused. But no such attempt was made by the accused. PW-3 gave all satisfactory answers of the Ld. Defence Counsel during his cross-examination and the court has no reason to disbelieve him or to discard his testimony. The fact that the computer education was not imparted to him in the year 1975 when he completed the course on forensic science would not mean that he is not an expert so as to examine the issues in question. There is nothing to show that he was not competent to analyse the CPU in question or to give report.

50. Arguing his case on this basis, ld. Defence Counsel has put forth various arguments. It is his stand that there exists a software through which it is possible to ascertain as to when a particular system was logged in or logged out over the internet, what sites had been visited, what contents were uploaded or downloaded, and what were the passwords. It is argued that these facts have not been ascertained by the investigating agency thoroughly, which makes the prosecution case doubtful. It is contended that the recovery of the incriminating material from the computer system which was being used by the accused as well, should not be attributed exclusively to the accused, particularly when no investigation has been done with respect to other computer systems available at the spot. He has pointed out that as per the data on record, emails had been sent even on a Sunday and it is quite improbable that the accused was working on a Sunday. Similar questions with respect to the possibility of ascertaining the login and logout details from the server or existence of software to ascertain the details of site visits and their passwords, were asked from various witnesses. However, the ordinary witnesses could not answer such questions and the technical persons express their ignorance about the existence of any such software. PW-5 deposed that saving of such login and logout details or accessibility of system by the other systems through a common server would depend on the configuration of the systems and network. The witnesses however denied existence of any software by which passwords could be ascertained or if any could access the emails and attachments sent by some person to a third person through a different computer system, though connected to a common server.

51. Well, the court does not find merit in any of such submissions, arguments and contentions. As pointed out by the internet service provider PW-5, there was no need to login or logout in the internet lease line provided to the Oswal company as it was a 24 hour online service. Therefore, there was no question of ascertaining the details or logs of logging in and logging out from any internet activity. Again, except bald averments and questioning by the Ld, Defence Counsel, there is no evidence at all to establish that any such software exists through which it could be ascertained as to what passwords were used by any user. Of course, login details, activity logs, site visits, the contents uploaded or downloaded, etc. can be generated by technical experts, which have been in fact generated even in the present case, on the basis of which the accused could be identified, but it would be too much to say that even the passwords could be ascertained through any such software. No such software has been brought to the notice of the court. No technical expert has been examined by the accused in defence to establish this fact. If this fact is to be believed blindly, it would mean that the entire banking system or defence system or government establishments or commercial systems based on electronic mailing systems, would simply collapse, as anyone would be free to use that software so easily and to send emails from the accounts of some other person by ascertaining passwords. But it is not so the situation. Passwords are duly protected and encrypted which cannot be used by any person other than the account holder, except in cases of hacking. Clarification in this regard has been given by the technical expert PW-10 in the present case, who stated that such details can certainly be ascertained, except the passwords which remain in encrypted form and no other person can ascertain the same. For that matter, it may be noted that one does not need any password to visit any site, particularly the homepage. Passwords are required to login to some distinct account on that website.