Cyber forensics and Indian approach has always been of indifference. There are very few cyber forensics institutions in India and they are heavily overburdened due to lack of manpower to manage the ever growing cases of cyber crimes, white collor crimes and corporate frauds.
At Perry4Law and Perry4Law’s Techno Legal Base (PTLB) we have been managing the exclusive techno legal cyber forensics research centre of India. We believe that Indian government must formulate cyber forensics best practices in India. We also believe that cyber forensic investigation solutions in India must be developed by Indian government in association with private industry.
In India the law enforcement agencies are still struggling to gain cyber forensics expertise. They need to be trained properly to manage cyber forensics issue in a more effective manner. Issues like IP address tracking and audio, video and media forensics in India are still not very much part of the investigation procedure of law enforcement agencies of India. For instance, lack of use of cyber forensics best practices in IPL match fixing case may jeoparadise it. Similarly, forensics analysis of Nokia’s computer used to download software in India has also not been undertaken properly.
The latest to add to this list is the defective cyber forensics approach of central bureau of investigation (CBI) in Aarushi Talwar’s murder case. As per IBNLive the defence counsel in the Aarushi Talwar’s murder case has challenged the prosecution version of CBI that Rajesh Talwar was awake on the night of the crime and had used Internet connection at regular intervals.
The defence counsel alleges that CBI did not provide technical details to the expert who was inconclusive about the use of router. The counsel also argued that to prove its Internet router theory, CBI never sent computer seized from Talwars’ home to experts to ascertain whether it was on or off with small gaps in the intervening night of May 15-16, 2008. Rajesh Talwar, during the recording of his statement, had said that he went to sleep after 11.30 pm and did not use Internet.
The defence counsel has also asked why has the probe agency so far not revealed which sites Talwar was using on Internet? He maintains that to confirm Internet router activity, whether it was switched on or off with small gaps, it is required to examine detailed ICP log, detailed computer log and router or modem log, but these details were never provided to experts by the CBI.
The defence counsel also alleges that although CBI seized computer from Talwars’ house, it did not seize router and modem logs from there. That is why CBI’s theory of internet router activity was repeatedly switched on or off gets demolished here.
CBI has yet to come up with its version of these accusations by the defence counsel. There may be possibilities where the evidence provided by CBI may be enough to vindicate its claims in the court of law.
Perry4Law Organisation believes that a cyber crime investigation manual must be drafted by CBI and all future investigations and prosecutions must be made in compliance with the same. Recently the rules pertaining to inspection, inquiry and investigation (PDF) have been released by Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) and Perry4Law has provided its suggestion in this regard to the MCA.
The rules have rightly relied upon using the public private partnership (PPP) model to deal with sophisticated cyber crimes and corporate crimes in India. Indian government and serious fraud investigation office (SFIO) would also hire private experts on contractual basis. SFIO would also draft a manual of investigation to investigate various offences falling within its jurisdiction. CBI must also act in similar manner to get more effective results.