- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Abcd v. Union Of India And Others (S).
Factual and Procedural Background
The charge-sheet in the case has been filed after investigation into an incident that, according to the complainant, occurred in January 2018. The accused possessed two mobile phones: one personal device, allegedly damaged during operations in December 2018 and formally surrendered in February 2019, and a second phone issued in his official capacity. Pursuant to a court order dated 23 July 2019, the investigating agency took custody of the second phone on 31 July 2019 and, with assistance from CyPAD (Delhi Police Cyber Cell), extracted and analysed its data, but could not locate a disputed photograph found on the victim’s phone.
The first (damaged) phone was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) soon after its recovery, but an April 2019 FSL report stated that it could not be opened. In June 2019 the investigators sought permission to involve an Apple Service Centre to attempt to power on the device. The court is now monitoring further forensic efforts, including examination of a phone used by the initial investigating officer.
Legal Issues Presented
The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.
Arguments of the Parties
Complainant/Victim Side
- Senior Advocate Ms. Aishwarya Bhati contended that the investigation into data recovery from both phones was inadequate and that the accused had not cooperated.
Accused Side
- Senior Advocate Ms. Sonia Mathur disputed any lack of cooperation, voluntarily providing the common pass-code “220192” for both phones.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court noted that the charge-sheet itself does not attribute the failure to access the first phone to any non-cooperation by the accused. Given that the pass-code has now been supplied, the bench considered it necessary to exhaust all technical avenues to retrieve potentially crucial digital evidence. It therefore:
- Directed both the Apple Service Centre and the FSL to attempt, under the personal supervision of ACP Shweta Singh Chauhan (head of the SIT), to restart the first phone and recover its data within four weeks.
- Mandated that, if these efforts fail, the device be referred to CBI-CFSL, which must complete its analysis within four weeks of such referral.
- Ordered completion of metadata extraction from the second phone, as referenced in paragraph 23 of the charge-sheet, preferably within four weeks.
- Required analysis of the phone used by the former investigating officer, with an FSL report due in the same four-week period.
The court scheduled further hearing for 24 October 2019 and continued all interim orders.
Holding and Implications
The court issued binding directions to multiple forensic agencies to complete data retrieval from the relevant mobile devices within specified timelines, with supervisory oversight by a senior police officer.
These directions compel expedited forensic examination, aim to resolve allegations of inadequate investigation, and preserve crucial digital evidence. The order affects only the ongoing investigation and does not establish new legal precedent.
1. After due investigation, Charge-sheet has been filed in the present case.
2. It must be noted that the episode in question, according to the complainant, had occurred sometime in January 2018.
3. According to the accused, he was having two Mobile Phones, i.e., (i) which was private, and, (ii) which was given to him in his official capacity. His private Mobile Phone had been damaged during the course of operations sometime in December 2018 and said Mobile Phone was surrendered by the accused in February 2019, which finds reflection in Para 19 of the Charge-sheet. According to said Para 19, this Mobile Phone could not be turned on.
4. Pursuant to the order dated 23.07.2019 passed by this Court, the second Mobile Phone of the accused was taken in custody by the Investigating machinery on 31.07.2019. This part is dealt with in Para 23 of the Charge-sheet. According to said Paragraph, the data of the Mobile Phone could be extracted with the help of CyPad (Cyber Cell, Delhi Police) and has been analysed. However, a particular photograph, copy of which was available with the victim in her Mobile Phone, could not be located in the second Mobile Phone of the accused.
5. According to said paragraph, the attempts were being made to extract the Metadata for the Expert's Opinion. However, the Charge-sheet reveals that the photograph given by the victim from her Mobile Phone has been analysed and the location and the timing of the photograph in question has also been considered in the Charge-sheet.
6. Soon after the recovery of the first Mobile Phone in February 2019, according to the Investigating Officer, who is present in the Court, the matter was referred to FSL. However, the Report of the FSL indicated that they were unable to open the Mobile Phone. This Report was received sometime in April 2019. In June 2019, an application was made to the concerned Court to engage the services of Apple Service Centre to enable them to make efforts to switch on the Mobile Phone.
7. It was submitted by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Senior Advocate that the investigation in connection with recovery of data from these two phones was not proper and there was no co-operation from the accused.
8. It must be stated that the Charge-sheet does not suggest that because of any lack of cooperation on part of the accused in not providing or supplying the Code Number, the Mobile Phone could not be operated or opened. It must also be stated that Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned Senior Advocate for the accused has very fairly supplied the Code Number (No. 220192) and stated that this Code Number applies to both the Mobile Phones, with the help of which said Mobile Phones could normally be opened.
9. Be that as it may, going by paragraphs 19, the Mobile Phone has now been sent to Apple Service Centre.
10. According to the victim, the Mobile Phone used by the then Investigating Officer also carried certain relevant data, which if retrieved may help in unfolding the truth. According to the learned counsel for the Investigating Agency, said Mobile Phone has also been sent to the FSL for analysis and investigation.
11. In the circumstances, we pass following directions:
a. We direct the Apple Service Centre as well as the FSL Agency to make every possible effort to restart the Phone and retrieve the data from the first Mobile Phone.
Let the entire exercise be undertaken within four weeks from today, under the personal supervision of ACP Shweta Singh Chauhan (Heading SIT).
b) In case no headway is made even through the intervention of the Apple Service Centre, let the matter be referred to CBI CFSL. In such eventuality, CBI CFSL shall complete the process of investigation and analysis within four weeks of the reference.
c) Attempts to extract the Metadata of second Mobile Phone as stated in para 23 of the Charge-sheet shall also be taken to logical conclusion as early as possible and preferably within four weeks from today.
d) The Mobile Phone belonging to the then Investigating Officer shall also be subjected to analysis and the report in that behalf shall be submitted by the FSL within four weeks from today.
12. List this matter on 24.10.2019.
13. Till further orders, interim orders to continue.
Alert