Part A: Crime Scene Processing
1. Scene Assessment & Methodology
The team conducted an initial walkthrough using the systematic
approach: secure the perimeter, assess for hazards, establish inner/outer
perimeters, and prioritize evidence preservation. Methodology followed
standard protocols—visual survey of living room and master bedroom,
noting entry via broken main door lock, ransacked drawers/cupboards,
and undisturbed windows. No hazards identified; chain-of-custody
initiated immediately.
2. Evidence Identification & Collection
Identified 8 key items: (1) broken door lock fragments (metal shavings,
tool marks); (2) latent fingerprints on cupboard handle and ransacked
drawers; (3) shoe prints on living room carpet (size 10, patterned soles);
(4) discarded glove fragment near bedroom window sill; (5) smudged
glass tumbler on coffee table (partial print); (6) fibre strands on bedroom
floor (synthetic, blue); (7) pry bar marks on cupboard door; (8) trace soil
sample from entry point. Each collected using sterile tools, bagged/tagged
with labels (item , location, time, collector initials), and logged in chain-
of-custody form.
3. Photography & Documentation
Photographed overall scene (5 shots: entry, living room panorama,
bedroom panorama), mid-range (10 shots: evidence in context), and
close-ups (20 shots: each item with scale ruler). Sketched floor plan (1:50
scale) showing evidence locations, measurements, and compass
orientation. All documented in notebook with timestamps.
Part B: Preliminary Forensic Report
4. Scene Observations
Living room showed general disarray (overturned cushions, open
drawers) but selective targeting—no random theft. Master bedroom had
forced cupboard access but intact window locks. Main door ajar with
fresh pry damage; no neighbour disturbances noted, aligning with ground-
floor CCTV limitation.
5. Evidence Findings
Physical evidence includes tool-marked lock (consistent with burglary
tools), multiple fingerprints (potential suspect/victim), and foreign
fibres/shoe prints indicating intruder presence. Missing items (HP
Pavilion laptop, iPhone 14, ₹3 lakh jewellery) match reported narrative;
glove fragment suggests deliberate trace avoidance.
6. Inconsistencies Identified
Reported timeline (empty 2-6:30 PM) fits, but ransacking appears
staged—superficial disarray without valuables like TV/wallet touched.
Jewellery cupboard targeted precisely (owner knew location),
contradicting outsider burglary. No window forced entry despite easier
access; door left ajar risks detection, unusual for pros. Wife's absence
unverified.
7. Hypotheses Based on Physical Evidence
Hypothesis 1: Inside job—precise jewellery targeting, staged ransack,
fingerprints possibly familial. Hypothesis 2: Amateur burglar via stairwell
(no CCTV), using pry tools; leads: match shoe prints to local suspects,
analyse fibres/DNA. Hypothesis 3: Insurance fraud—broken lock self-
inflicted, items hidden. Recommend CCTV review, neighbour timelines,
victim alibis/finances.
Preparation Steps (Pre-Simulation)
1. Review case facts: Note timeline, reported items, police notes (no
window entry, no CCTV upstairs, isolated flat).
2. Assign roles in team of 5; prepare phone (charged, high-res camera),
notebook, pens, scale ruler, evidence bags/markers (if allowed).
3. Memorize rubric: Prioritize inconsistencies/hypotheses (6 marks
total) for depth.
Processing Procedure
1. Reconnaissance :Lead walkthrough—note entry/exit, hazards,
patterns (e.g., targeted theft). Announce "Scene secure."
2. Systematic Search : Zone method (living room grid, bedroom
spiral). ID evidence verbally: "Item 1: lock fragments at door."
Photographer captures before touch.
3. Collection/Documentation : Collector bags (label: Item#, Loc,
Date/Time, Initials). Sketcher draws plan. Recorder logs chain-of-
custody (transfer signatures).
Part A - Crime Scene Processing
1. Scene Assessment & Methodology
Initial walkthrough secured perimeter at Flat 302, Greenwood TIME
Apartments. Assessed living room and master bedroom: broken main
door lock, ransacked drawers/cupboards, no window damage. Used zone
method (grid for living room, spiral for bedroom); chain-of-custody
established from entry. No hazards; prioritized fragile evidence like
prints.
2. Evidence Identification & Collection
• Item 1: Broken door lock fragments (metal shavings, pry marks) –
collected in sterile bag.
• Item 2: Latent fingerprints on cupboard handle/drawers – lifted with
tape.
• Item 3: Shoe prints (size 10, tread pattern) on carpet –
casted/photographed.
• Item 4: Glove fragment (latex, blue fiber) near window sill – bagged.
• Item 5: Smudged glass tumbler (partial print) on coffee table –
swabbed.
• Item 6: Synthetic blue fibers on bedroom floor – vacuumed/taped.
• Item 7: Pry bar marks on cupboard – documented/measured.
• Item 8: Soil trace at entry – scraped into vial.
All labeled (Item #, location, 9/12/25 time, initials); logged in
custody form.
3. Photography & Documentation :
35 photos: 5 overall (panoramas), 10 mid-range (context), 20 close-ups
(with scale). Sketch: 1:50 floor plan marking evidence, door entry,
compass N. Notebook timestamps all steps.
Part B - Preliminary Forensic Report :
4. Scene Observations :
Living room disarrayed (cushions overturned, drawers open) but
selective—no TV/wallet touched. Bedroom cupboard forced open
precisely; main door left ajar with fresh damage. No neighbor reports;
aligns with no upper-floor CCTV.
5. Evidence Findings :
Key items: tool-marked lock, fingerprints (multiple sources), shoe
prints/fibers indicating intruder. Glove suggests trace avoidance; missing
laptop/iPhone/jewelry (₹3L) matches report. Soil/prints provide leads for
tracking.
6. Inconsistencies Identified Staged ransack: Superficial disorder,
valuables like TV ignored—unlike typical burglary.
• Precise jewelry targeting: Cupboard known only to residents,
suggests insider knowledge.
• Door left ajar: Risks detection; pros secure scenes—implies amateur
or intentional flag.
• No window entry despite easier access; wife's unverified absence
raises alibi flags.
7. Hypotheses Based on Physical Evidence :
Hypothesis 1 (Inside Job): Familial prints/fibers, exact targeting—check
victim alibis, finances; match prints to household.
Hypothesis 2 (Amateur Burglar): Stairwell entry (no CCTV), shoe/soil to
local database; review ground CCTV timestamps 2-6:30 PM.
Hypothesis 3 (Insurance Fraud): Self-inflicted lock, hidden items—audit
policies, verify Meera's location via phone records. Leads: Lab analysis
(DNA/fibers), neighbor timeliness.
