📂 Drop Document Here
or click to browse files
Supported: PDF, DOC/DOCX, XLS/XLSX, PPT/PPTX, TXT, JPG, PNG, BMP
Initializing analysis...
Document Forensics Report
Generated by Cyber Law Academy Document Forensics Tool
Report Generated:
1. File Identification
AnalyzedLegal Relevance
File identification establishes the basic identity of the electronic document. Under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (formerly Section 65B, Indian Evidence Act), the person producing the document must be able to identify it as the same document they received or created.
2. Cryptographic Hash Values
Computed| Algorithm | Hash Value | Purpose |
|---|
Evidentiary Significance of Hash Values
Hash values serve as a "digital fingerprint" of the document. Any modification to the file, however small, will produce a completely different hash value. This is crucial for:
- Chain of Custody: Proving the document has not been altered since seizure/collection
- Authentication: Matching hash values across copies proves they are identical
- Integrity Verification: Courts accept matching hash values as strong evidence of document integrity
Reference: Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) - Supreme Court emphasized the importance of electronic evidence integrity
3. Metadata Extraction
Extracted| Property | Value | Explanation |
|---|
Why Metadata Matters in Legal Proceedings
Metadata is "data about data" - information automatically recorded by software when creating or modifying documents. It can reveal:
- When a document was actually created vs. when it claims to have been created
- Who created or last modified the document
- What software was used (can indicate tampering if inconsistent)
- Edit history and time spent on the document
4. Document Structure Analysis
Examined5. Forensic Indicators
Analyzing...Important Disclaimer on Forensic Indicators
These are INDICATORS only, not conclusions. The presence of an indicator does not prove tampering or forgery. Many legitimate workflows can produce these indicators. A qualified forensic expert must interpret these findings in context. This tool does not replace expert testimony.
Document Comparison
Upload two versions of a document to identify metadata differences, structural changes, and content variations.
📄 Document A (Original/Earlier)
Click or drop file here
📄 Document B (Modified/Later)
Click or drop file here
Comparison Results
ComparedTimeline Reconstruction
Visualize document activity based on extracted timestamps. Upload multiple documents to build a comprehensive timeline.
📅 Add Documents to Timeline
Drop multiple files or click to select
Documents Added:
Document Activity Timeline
ReconstructedTimeline Analysis Notes
Gaps or overlaps in timestamps may indicate:
- Gaps: Missing documents, intentional deletions, or normal workflow pauses
- Overlaps: Multiple users working simultaneously, or possible timestamp manipulation
- Sequences: Unusual order (e.g., modification before creation) warrants further investigation
Note: System clock discrepancies between devices can cause apparent anomalies.
Legal Framework for Electronic Evidence
Section 63, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023
This provision (replacing Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act) governs the admissibility of electronic records. Key requirements:
- The electronic record must be produced from a computer used regularly for lawful activities
- Information was fed into the computer in the ordinary course of activities
- The computer was operating properly during the relevant period
- A certificate under Section 63(4) must accompany the electronic record
Chain of Custody Principles
Maintaining an unbroken chain of custody is essential for electronic evidence:
- Identification: Clearly identify the device/media containing the evidence
- Collection: Document how and when the evidence was collected
- Preservation: Use write-blockers, create forensic images, compute hash values
- Documentation: Maintain detailed logs of every person who handled the evidence
- Verification: Re-compute hash values at each transfer to confirm integrity
Key Case Laws
| Case | Key Holding |
|---|---|
| Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 | Certificate under Section 65B is mandatory for electronic evidence admissibility |
| Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1 | Clarified and affirmed mandatory certificate requirement; relaxed requirement when original device is produced |
| State of NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600 | Electronic evidence requires proper authentication and foundation |
| Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P. (2018) 2 SCC 801 | Certificate requirement should not be mandatory in all cases (later partially overruled) |
Best Practices for Legal Professionals
- Always compute hash values immediately upon receiving electronic evidence
- Maintain multiple copies on different storage media
- Document all metadata before opening/viewing the document
- Never work on original evidence; use forensic copies
- Prepare Section 63(4) certificate with complete technical details
- Consider engaging a certified forensic expert for disputed documents