Mobile Phone Data is one way that mobile device users can gain wireless access to the internet. Depending on how much you use the internet, and where, having a data-enabled device will give you the best of both worlds, giving you on-the-go access to the information you need.
Recently, Evidentiary Value of Mobile Data is most important part in every type of cases in courts, Digital Forensic Examiners have seen a remarkable increase in requests to examine data from mobile phones. The examination of cellular phones and the extraction of data from the same present challenges for forensic examiners:
The numbers of smartphones examined over time using a variety of tools and techniques may make it difficult for an examiner to recall the examination of a particular cell phone. There is an immense variety of cellular phones on the market, encompassing a array of proprietary operating systems and embedded file systems, applications, services, and peripherals. Mobile Phones are especially designed to communicate with the phone network and other networks via Bluetooth, infrared and wireless (WiFi) networking. To best preserve the data on the phone it is necessary to isolate the phone from surrounding networks, which may not always be possible.
Cellular phones employ many internal, removable and online data storage capabilities. In most cases, it is necessary to apply more than one tool in order to extract and document the desired data from the cellular phone and its storage media. In certain cases, the tools used to process cellular phones may report conflicting or erroneous information, thus, it is critical to verify the accuracy of data from cellular phones.
While the amount of data stored by phones is still small when compared to the storage capacity of computers, the storage capacity of these devices continues to grow. The types of data cellular phones contain and the way they are being used are constantly evolving. With the popularity of smart phones, it is no longer sufficient to document only the phonebook, call history, text messages, photos, calendar entries, notes and media storage areas. The data from an ever-growing number of installed applications should be documented as these applications contain a wealth of information such as passwords, GPS locations and browsing history.
The reasons for the extraction of data from cellular phones may be as varied as the techniques used to process them. Cellular phone data is often desired for intelligence purposes and the ability to process phones in the field is attractive. Sometimes though, only certain data is needed. In other cases full extraction of the embedded file system and the physical memory is necessary for a full forensic examination and potential recovery of deleted data. Because of the above factors, the development of guidelines and processes for the extraction and documentation of data from cellular phones is extremely important. What follows is an overview of process considerations for the extraction and documentation of cell phone data.
According to Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Information Technology Act, 2000 grants legal recognition to electronic records and evidence submitted in form of electronic records. According to section 2(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 “electronic record” means data, record or data generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or micro film or computer generated micro fiche. The Act recognizes electronic record in a wide sense thereby including electronic data in any form such as videos or voice messages. The Information technology has made it easy to communicate and transmit data in various forms from a simple personal computer or a mobile phone or other kinds of devices. The Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008 has recognized various forms of communication devices and defines a “communicationdevice” under section 2 (ha)of the Act “communication device” means cell phones, personal digital assistance or combination of both or any other device used to communicate, send or transmit any text, video, audio or image. The Indian IT Act 2000 lays down a blanket permission for records not to be denied legal effect if they are in electronic form as long as they are accessible for future reference.
P L D 2013 Peshawar 78
Before Shah Jehan Khan Akhundzada and Rooh-ul-Amin Khan, JJ
SHAKEEL NAWAZ and another—Appellants
Versus
THE STATE and others—Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.14-B of 2012, decided on 30th January, 2013.
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)—
—-Ss. 302 & 34—Qatl-e-amd, common intention—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt- No one was charged in the F.I.R.—Involvement of accused was surfaced through tracker dogs- –Person who brought the sniffer dogs to the spot, could not be found—Handler of the tracker dogs was unknown and had never been examined by the prosecution—Reliability of dogs, as tracker and detector of crime had also not been tested by local Police—Tracker dogs having allegedly been brought on the next day after spot inspection by the Investigating Officer, it would be unjust to say that the trail was not stale and contaminated with different scent and it would not be possible to hold accused guilty of offence, merely on the basis that the tracker dogs had gone to the residence/Baithak of accused—Case against accused was sought to be proved by the prosecution with the help of circumstances, but those circumstances were not established by the prosecution, and were insufficient to form a complete chain pointing unerringly to the guilt of accused—Story of last seen was afterthought and concocted after three days of the ccurrence— Such last seen evidence could not be based for conviction of accused—Recovery of blood stained weapon of offence, was of no avail to prosecution, as same was not sent to the Laboratory for analysis and expert report—DNA test, being not conducted from notified laboratory, was not admissible in the evidence, and could not be based for conviction in a case of capital punishment, especially when it had no sanctity—Prosecution case, being full of material contradictions, benefit of doubt was extended to accused—Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, passed against accused, by the Trial Court, was set aside, accused was
acquitted from the charge and was set free, in circumstances.