Delhi Court Upholds Child Porn Charges Despite Missing Phone

• A Delhi court upheld charges against Aditya Biswas for uploading child pornography on Facebook.
• The ruling suggests that physical recovery of a device is not indispensable for prosecution under Section 67B of the IT Act.
• Digital evidence can be sufficient to link an accused to control of a social media account, even in the absence of a mobile phone.

Rejecting these submissions, court reiterated that at the stage of framing charges, a court is only required to determine whether the material on record raises a 'grave suspicion' against the accused and not whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The Delhi court's decision to uphold charges against Aditya Biswas for uploading child pornography on Facebook has significant implications for the prosecution of such cases in India. The ruling suggests that physical recovery of a device is not indispensable for prosecution under Section 67B of the IT Act, and that digital evidence can be sufficient to link an accused to control of a social media account. This shift in approach may lead to more effective prosecution of child pornography cases, where perpetrators often use technology to evade detection. The court's decision also highlights the importance of considering the admissibility of digital evidence in Indian courts, particularly in cases involving online platforms like Facebook.

Aditya Biswas was accused of uploading a 17-second video depicting a child engaged in a sexually explicit act on his Facebook account. The investigation revealed that the IP address and mobile number linked to the account were traced, and the registered subscriber allegedly told police that Biswas had created and operated the account using his phone. The prosecution argued that the CyberTipline report generated by the US-based National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) was sufficient evidence to link Biswas to the crime. However, Biswas challenged the framing of charges, arguing that the report was inadmissible and that no mobile phone was recovered from him.

Rejecting Biswas' submissions, the court held that at the stage of framing charges, a court is only required to determine whether the material on record raises a 'grave suspicion' against the accused. The court observed that questions relating to the admissibility or evidentiary value of electronic records are to be examined during trial. Furthermore, the court noted that physical recovery of a device is not indispensable where digital evidence links the accused to control of the relevant social media account. In this case, the IP logs and subscriber details linked Biswas to his Facebook account, despite the absence of a mobile phone.

Lawyers should note that the Delhi court's ruling suggests that physical recovery of a device is not indispensable for prosecution under Section 67B of the IT Act, and that digital evidence can be sufficient to link an accused to control of a social media account.

Source: Original reporting via The Hindu