Child pornography case: Delhi court says missing mobile can’t shield accused from trial

A Delhi court has upheld an order directing the framing of charges against a man accused of uploading child sexual abuse material on Facebook, saying that the non-recovery of the mobile phone allegedly used in the offence cannot be a ground to stifle a prosecution when digital evidence links the accused to the account.

Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi was hearing a revision petition filed by Aditya Biswas, who challenged a trial court order directing framing of charges under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act against him.

The section deals with publishing or transmitting sexually explicit material involving children.

In the order dated July 27, the court said, “The physical recovery of a mobile phone is not an absolute sine qua non for framing a charge when the digital trail, particularly IP logs and subscriber data, securely links the transmission to the accused’s control over the social media account.” 

The case stems from an FIR registered by the South Delhi cyber police station in December 2022 following a complaint received from the National Crime Records Bureau based on a CyberTipline report generated by the US-based National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC).

According to the prosecution, a Facebook account named ‘Neem Biswas’ uploaded a 17-second video depicting a child engaged in a sexually explicit act.

Investigators traced the account through an IP address and mobile number and alleged that Biswas had created and operated it using a friend’s phone. The accused challenged the charge-framing order, arguing that no Facebook or NCMEC official had been examined, making the CyberTipline report inadmissible hearsay.

He also contended that no mobile phone was recovered from him and that the prosecution’s case relied heavily on his disclosure statement.

Rejecting the plea, the court said the trial court had rightly found sufficient material to raise a “grave suspicion” against the accused.

“The non-recovery of the device, allegedly thrown away by the petitioner, cannot be used to nip a legitimate prosecution in the bud,” the court said.

The court also held that questions regarding the admissibility of electronic evidence and examination of witnesses would be matters for trial, and dismissed the revision petition.