Authors : Shivjung Adhikari; Yojan Pokhrel

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 1 - January

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/3mudtdy3

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/mpkzsd4p

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26jan834

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : The role of digital evidence in modern investigations has expanded significantly due to the widespread use of digital devices and online services. From mobile phones and laptops to cloud platforms and social media, digital traces now form a central component of criminal, cyber, and civil investigations. However, many investigative agencies, particularly those operating in lowresource environments, struggle to manage and analyze digital evidence effectively. These challenges arise from limited access to advanced forensic tools, insufficient technical infrastructure, lack of trained personnel, and increasing complexity of digital data. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a potential supportive technology in digital forensics. AI-based methods can assist investigators by automating repetitive tasks, sorting large datasets, detecting patterns, and prioritizing potentially relevant evidence. While AI offers promising benefits, it also introduces technical, ethical, and legal challenges especially in environments where oversight and resources are limited. This research paper adopts a narrative and reflective approach to explore the use of AI in digital evidence identification within low-resource investigative settings. In addition, it reflects on the learning experience gained through participation in this research under academic supervision. Rather than viewing AI as a replacement for human investigators, the paper positions AI as a supportive tool that must operate alongside human judgment and ethical responsibility. The study highlights that supervised research plays a vital role in developing not only technical understanding but also critical thinking, ethical awareness, and professional maturity among students in cybersecurity and digital forensics.

References :

1. Akeiber, H.J. (2025) ‘A comprehensive study of cybercrime and digital forensics through machine learning and AI’, Al‑Rafidain Journal of Engineering Sciences, 3(1), pp. 369– 395. 
2. Ansh Tech Labs, Italiya, N., Makwana, J., Thakor, B. & Panchal, H. (2024)
3. ‘Revolutionizing digital forensics: The role of AI and ML in evidence analysis’, NFSU Journal of Forensic Science. 
4. Dunsin, D., Ghanem, M.C., Ouazzane, K. & Vassilev, V. (2024) ‘A comprehensive analysis of the role of artificial intelligence and machine learning in modern digital forensics and incident response’, Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 48, 301675. 
5. Kunapareddy, D.S.S., Sridhar, D.P. & Malleswari, D.D.N. (2025) ‘The use of artificial intelligence in digital forensics: Applications in cybercrime investigation’, Advances in Consumer Research, 2(5), pp. 2817–2823. 
6. Mandayam, R. (2024) ‘The impact of artificial intelligence on digital forensic’, Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Cloud Computing, 3(3), 414. 
7. Ragho, S.R. & Chaudhari, N. (2025) ‘Artificial intelligence in digital forensics: A review of cyber‑attack detection models and frameworks’, Journal of Information Systems Engineering and Management, 10(57s). 
8. Syifaurachman, S. (2025) ‘Opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence in digital forensics’, International Journal Software Engineering and Computer Science, 5(2), pp. 560–575. 
9. Worku Kassa, Y., James, J.I. & Belay, E. (2024) ‘Cybercrime intention recognition: A systematic literature review’, Information, 15(5), 263. 
10. Casey, E. (2011) Digital Evidence and Computer Crime: Forensic Science, Computers and the Internet. 3rd edn. Academic Press.
11. Carrier, B. & Spafford, E.H. (2004) ‘An event‑based digital forensic investigation framework’, Digital Investigation, 1(2), pp. 123–137.
12. Garfinkel, S.L. (2010) Digital Forensics Research: The Next 10 Years. Digital Forensics Magazine.
13. Kessler, G.C. (2021) ‘Training challenges in digital forensics for low‑resource agencies’, Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law, 16(2), pp. 1–15.
14. Rogers, M.K., Seigfried, K. & Böhme, R. (2017) ‘Challenges in digital forensics for under‑resourced departments’, Policing: An International Journal, 40(3), pp. 501–516.
15. Taylor, M., Haggerty, J. & Gresty, D. (2015) ‘Digital evidence in the cloud: Challenges and directions’, Computer Law & Security Review, 31(2), pp. 171–183.
16. Vincze, S. (2016) ‘Challenges in low‑resource forensic environments’, Digital Investigation, 17, pp. 30–40. 
17. Zawoad, S. & Hasan, R. (2015) ‘FADE: A framework for adaptive digital forensic evidence analysis using AI’, Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law, 10(2), pp. 27–42.
18. Baryannis, G., Dani, S. & Antoniou, G. (2019) ‘Predictive analytics and AI in digital forensics: Opportunities and challenges’, Computers & Security, 87, 101570.
19. Breitinger, F. & Baier, H. (2018) ‘A new taxonomy for digital forensics challenges’, Digital Investigation, 24, pp. S15–S24.
20. Chen, H., Chiang, R.H.L. & Storey, V.C. (2012) ‘Business intelligence and analytics: From big data to big impact’, MIS Quarterly, 36(4), pp. 1165–1188.
21. Dunn, C.W. & Wallach, H. (2025) ‘Human oversight in machine‑assisted digital investigations’, Journal of Cybersecurity and Privacy, 5(1), pp. 45–62.
22. Edwards, L. & Veale, M. (2017) ‘Slave to the algorithm? Why a “right to explanation” is probably not the remedy you are looking for’, Duke Law Technology Review, 16, pp. 18– 84.
23. Fitzgerald, B. & Dennis, A. (2021) Business Data Communications and Networking. 13th edn. Wiley.
24. Garcia, S., Smith, J. & Lee, H. (2020) ‘Data scarcity in digital forensic investigations’, Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 32, 200926.
25. Haggerty, K.D. & Ericson, R.V. (2000) ‘The surveillant assemblage’, The British Journal of Sociology, 51(4), pp. 605–622.
26. Kleinberg, S. & Verschuere, B. (2022) ‘Explainability in forensic AI systems’, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 67(3), pp. 789–798.
27. Kumar, M. & Singh, R. (2024) ‘Machine learning models for mobile device forensic triage’, International Journal of Digital Crime and Forensics, 16(2), pp. 89–107.
28. Liu, J., Ma, X. & Wang, Y. (2023) ‘Deep learning applications for digital evidence extraction’, Journal of Information Security and Applications, 69, 103293.
29. Lopez, F.G. & Scott, P.D. (2019) ‘Admissibility of digital evidence: Legal challenges’, Computer Law & Security Review, 35(1), pp. 1–13.
30. Mohammed, A., Noor, R.M. & Abdullah, S. (2022) ‘AI‑enabled timeline reconstruction in cybercrime investigations’, Journal of Cyber Forensics, 7(1), pp. 23–44.
31. Nguyen, T.T. & Choo, K.K.R. (2021) ‘A survey of digital forensics’ challenges in mobile forensics’, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 23(3), pp. 1851–1879.
32. Perera, R. & Pathirana, P.N. (2023) ‘AI and privacy trade‑offs in forensic practice’, International Journal of Information Management, 68, 102689.
33. Qi, L. & Zhang, D. (2024) ‘Explainable machine learning approaches in digital investigations’, AI Journal, 10(4), pp. 412–431.
34. Raciti, M., Di Mauro, S., Van Landuyt, D. & Bella, G. (2025) ‘To see or not to see: A privacy threat model for digital forensics in crime investigation’, arXiv preprint. 
35. Singh, S. & Dhiman, S. (2025) ‘Cybercrime and computer forensics in the epoch of artificial intelligence in India’, arXiv preprint. 
36. Singh, S. & Devi, L. (2025) ‘Reliability and admissibility of AI‑generated forensic evidence in criminal trials’, arXiv preprint. 
37. Syed, A. & Akhtar, R. (2018) ‘Automated digital evidence correlation using ML’, International Journal of Cyber Forensics, 9(2), pp. 45–62.
38. Taylor, R. & Patton, D. (2022) ‘Blockchain for digital evidence integrity’, Journal of Digital Security, 4(3), pp. 76–98.
39. Zeng, X., Wang, L. & Sun, Y. (2023) ‘Evaluating AI‑based anomaly detection for cybercrime’, Security and Communication Networks, 2023, Article 8187692.