New Delhi [India], August 10 : The Delhi High Court has directed the investigating officer in a POCSO case to pursue an additional forensic report concerning cloned data retrieved from mobile phones and expected the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) to furnish the report within four weeks.
Justice Prateek Jalan passed the order on a petition filed by the complainant/prosecutrix seeking time-bound completion of further investigation and filing of a supplementary police report in connection with an FIR registered at Subzi Mandi police station.
The Delhi Police informed the court that the investigation had been completed and the final report had already been filed. However, an additional FSL report relating to cloned data from the mobile phones of the concerned parties was still awaited.
The court directed the Investigating Officer to pursue the matter with the FSL and recorded that the requisite report was expected within four weeks. The police further assured that after receiving the FSL report, the supplementary police report would be filed before the concerned court within another four weeks.
The petition arose from an FIR registered on September 9, 2024, at Subzi Mandi police station under Sections 354, 354A, 376 and 509 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act.
According to the petition, the alleged incident took place on April 27, 2024, when the petitioner was below 16 years of age. The petitioner approached the High Court alleging that certain material, which the investigating agency had stated would be filed through a supplementary chargesheet, was still pending.
The pending material included certified call detail records (CDRs) and location details of the petitioner and accused, the forensic report concerning seized mobile phones, cloned copies and retrieved electronic data, besides a comprehensive supplementary police report.
The petition also referred to proceedings before the Special Court, where the investigating officer had earlier stated that relevant CDRs had been obtained and that a supplementary chargesheet was under preparation.
The petitioner alleged that despite such assurances, the pending material had not been completely placed on record.
The petitioner had sought directions for preservation and production of the complete FSL report, forensic extraction report, cloned forensic images, retrieved electronic data, hash values and chain-of-custody documents relating to the seized mobile phones. Directions were also sought for placing certified CDRs, subscriber details, tower-location charts and statutory certificates before the Special Court.
During the hearing, Accused Sushil Kumar also appeared through counsel and informed the High Court that a separate petition filed by him seeking further investigation is already pending before the court. The court specifically clarified that the present order is confined to the additional FSL report already sought by the investigating officer.
The High Court further made it clear that its direction regarding the FSL report would not prejudice the rights or contentions of any of the parties in the other pending petition seeking further investigation.
With the police undertaking to obtain the FSL report within four weeks and file the supplementary police report within four weeks thereafter, the High Court disposed of the writ petition along with the pending application.