Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

30. This takes us to the report of the Cyber Forensic Lab Exh.328, which describes how the data was retrieved from the mobile phone having IMEI 1- 353637065232250 and IMEI 2- 353637069731711. It was firstly copied on the hard disk and thereafter in the CD/DVD, which came to be produced in Court. That apart, the 'Hash Value' of the original as well as the copy of the said electronic record was verified and it matched as per the report. Hence, the 'Hash Value' of the copies produced in the Court matches with the 'Hash Value' of the videos and the photos retrieved from the mobile phone of Wasim.

31. The Supreme Court in the case of Zakia Ahsan Jafri Vs. State of Gujarat 2 has held in para no. 278 as under:-

2 2023 (13) SCC 54 28 cr-appeal-336-16+4.odt "278. Insofar as the CD record submitted by Mr. Rahul Sharma, as aforesaid, he had failed to handover the case property to the investigating officer (of Naroda Police Station), dealing with the case concerned nor got it entered in the register of case property (Muddamal) or informed the Court of jurisdiction about seizure of such case property. He had instead produced the CD on 31-5-2008, which came to be seized by the investigating officer and taken as evidence. These two CDs were collected by the investigating officer from the records of Nanavati-Shah Commission of Enquiry. Mr. Rahul Sharma had submitted the same before the Commission. Additionally, one CD containing the same information was submitted by Mr. Amresh Bhai N. Patel, Jansangharsh Manch, which was obtained by him from the Commission of Enquiry. That was also produced before the investigating officer. In absence of the original CDs which were never produced by Mr. Rahul Sharma, it was not possible for SIT to obtain the certificate of authenticity under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 and at the same time, it had been noticed that the CDs were copied by Mr. Rahul Sharma in his computer and format changed, by changing it in zipped format. The SIT has analyzed all these aspects and opined that MD 5 Hash value of the files in all the three CDs was found same. Further, the files containing call detail records or fragments of the files could not be found on the computer storage media. Moreover, due to lapse of time, no fruitful purpose would have been served in seizing the mobile phone of the user concerned after seven years to undertake roving enquiry. All these aspects have been duly considered by SIT while dealing with Allegation No. (xxiii) as reproduced hitherto, in paragraph No. 60. The opinion so recorded by the SIT commended to the Magistrate, as well as, the High Court.