Use of cyber forensics and e-discovery methodologies
is going to increase in India in the near future. Indian government
has also realised this aspect and has already started modernisation
of police force of India. This includes inculcating cyber law
awareness, cyber crimes investigation trainings, trainings regarding
use of cyber forensics, etc to the law enforcement agencies of India.
Nevertheless the need to develop cyber
forensics best practices in India and strengthening of cyber
forensics and cyber crimes investigation capabilities in India
has not yet been addressed by Indian government. Even the announced
regulations
and guidelines for effective investigation
of cyber crimes in India are missing till date.
Clearly handling of digital evidence is a big
challenge for the law enforcement agencies of India. We have seen
this aspect troubling our law enforcement agencies in Aarushi
Talwar’s murder case, IPL
Match Fixing case, Bitcoins
websites investigation, Nokia’s
tax violation case, Rajnath
Singh Son’s case, Amrita
Rai’s G-Mail account hacking case, etc. Indian government must
seriously consider empowering law enforcement agencies of India with
suitable trainings and technologies. Perry4Law
Organisation (P4LO) has started a dedicated LinkedIn Group named
Intelligence
Agencies and Law Enforcement Technology in India that is covering
various techno legal issues applicable to these agencies.
According to a media
report, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) monitoring the probe
into the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board or Vyapam scam
has informed the High Court that the documents used by AICC general
secretary Digvijaya Singh to target Madhya Pradesh CM Shivraj Singh
Chouhan are forged. Previously Singh had alleged that the hard disk
seized from an MPPEB official had been tampered with to ensure a
clean chit to Chouhan by replacing his name in the original excel
sheet with that of others.
The SIT claims that the documents appeared to be
forged and this forgery has been done with the intent to mislead the
investigating agency. To back its prima facie opinion, the SIT has
given seven reasons after examining the documents and after the
demonstration given by the technical staff of Special Task Force
(STF), the investigating agency.
Singh, meanwhile, has identified the whistleblower
who gave him the documents. “I am not saying that STF tampered the
data. Investigations should be done from the day hard disk was seized
by Indore police and truth will surface. Gujarat lab had received
tampered disk from MP. I won’t change my stand on this,” the
whistleblower told
TOI on phone. “I became a whistleblower when I realized STF was
relying on documents that seemed to have been tampered with. I
thought real documents would come out. When they didn’t I had to
come out,” he added. The whistleblower’s excel sheet has been
authenticated by a private forensic lab and scientists there are
ready to testify in the court. “STF has neither collected my
statement nor have they contacted the labs to cross-examine my
claims, else things would have been clear,” he said.
The SIT had sent the original hard disk seized from
MPPEB official to the forensic laboratory in Gandhinagar. The
laboratory has submitted its report before Special Investigation Team
(SIT), claiming excel-sheet in possession of Special Task Force (STF)
was “not tampered”. In February, Singh had submitted a 15-page
affidavit before Justice Chandresh Bhushan-led SIT alleging that
contents of excel-sheet, recovered from hard disk of MPPEB scam
accused computer, were manipulated and tampered with to shield the
chief minister.
While opening the special report submitted by the
SIT in the court on Friday, a division bench comprising Chief Justice
A M Khanvilkar and Justice Alok Aradhe posted the matter for further
hearing on April 27. Without elaborating, the division bench said,
“The STF is free to consider all aspects of the matter and issue
such instructions to STF as may be necessary in the circumstances, to
be proceeded in accordance with the law.” A government lawyer said
this could be interpreted to mean that the STF was free to act
against those who had conspired to submit false evidence.
.jpg)
