Actress abduction case: Kerala HC observes forensic report finds no manipulation in video clippings

By Express News Service

KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Monday noticed that the forensic report filed by the prosecution itself said that there is no such thing as a change within the hash worth of the eight information of the video clippings within the 2017 actress abduction and sexual assault case, indicating that there was no manipulation within the video content material. 

A hash worth is a quantity that’s typically represented as a sequence of characters and is produced by an algorithm primarily based upon the digital contents of a drive, medium, or file. The information copied from digital gadgets, storage media, and digital information are ordinarily authenticated by ‘hash worth’.

The forensic report said that the hash worth of the reminiscence card was solely modified. “Then how can the prosecution disown the report submitted by themselves?” requested the court docket. However, the counsel for the survivor said that the reminiscence card incorporates the visuals of rape dedicated on her and if these have been leaked, what could be her future?

The court docket additionally flayed the prosecution for accusing the trial court docket that it’s delaying the method and noticed that “you (prosecution) cannot say that the trial court is delaying the trial. You cannot say this against a judicial officer. The court will not tolerate this. I will not permit a judicial officer to be attacked like this,” orally noticed Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.

The court docket made the commentary when the petition filed by the state authorities difficult the order of Ernakulam Additional Special Court rejecting the plea to ahead the reminiscence card by which the alleged rape of the actor was recorded for forensic examination got here up for listening to. The court docket additionally thought of the petition filed by the survivor alleging political interference within the probe.

The crime department said that in the course of the examination of the reminiscence card in FSL, Thiruvananthapuram on January 10, 2020, for the aim of making a cloned copy, the FSL consultants seen a change in hash worth(indicative of unauthorised entry). Though the change in hash worth was reported to the trial court docket on January 29, 2020, it was not disclosed to the prosecution until February.

TB Mini, counsel for the survivor, submitted that the hash worth of the reminiscence card was modified. “Even though the MD file hash value of the memory card is changed, the hash value of the eight video recording files are found to be the same. On detailed examination, the memory card was accessed on January 9, 2018, and December 13, 2018. During that time the memory card was in the custody of the court. “Who accessed this reminiscence card? This is the video recording that contained the visuals of rape that occurred in 2017. If anyone accessed, copied, edited or tampered with it, what might be my future? That’s the query and it is a critical subject,” said counsel for the survivor. Then the court asked what’s meant by access?. DGP replied that “someone accessed it whereas it was within the custody of the court docket.”

The court docket identified that the anxiousness of the survivor relating to tampering of video clipping to the massive extent cleared by the report of the director, FSL saying that video recording has not been tampered with.

The court docket additional requested, “how can the expert say, who accessed it?” The hash worth of the video recording was discovered to be the identical. So there was no change. DGP mentioned that “that cannot be taken note of it and it’s only a statement.” To which the court docket identified that the state authorities produced the report. How do you disown this?. “I can understand if your case is that the videos have been completely changed, then what you saying is right. If it is been tampered with, you are right,” the court docket instructed the survivor’s counsel.

The court docket additionally reminded the prosecution that “your hands are tied as far as the document in the custody of the court. The trial court controls the whole proceedings before it. The prosecution cannot dictate to the court.”

“When you asked the court to forward something for examination, the court has the authority to decline it. Are you trying to delay the trial? isn’t this an expert opinion saying that there is no change in the hash value? Isn’t this sufficient evidence for the prosecution?” it requested and directed the prosecution to persuade the court docket whether or not there was entry to the reminiscence card.