Bengaluru Court Acquits Accused: Notes Defective Section 65-B Certificate and Forensic Gaps in Cyber Stalking Case

The XLV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, has acquitted the accused in a cyber stalking and online harassment case after holding that the screenshot printouts relied upon by the prosecution were not supported by a valid Section 65-B certificate and finding serious deficiencies in the investigation and the prosecution’s electronic evidence. The Court further held that the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of identity theft, obscenity, stalking and destruction of evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

The matter was represented by Roots Cyber Law Firm.

Quick Summary

According to the prosecution, the accused followed the complainant on Twitter and Instagram between 25 January 2021 and 5 October 2021, allegedly accessed her Twitter account without authorisation, posted her photographs, sent indecent messages, and later deleted accounts and digital material to destroy evidence. The charge sheet was filed for offences under Section 66(C) and Section 67 of the IT Act, and Sections 354D and 201 of the IPC.

After examining 10 prosecution witnesses, marking 22 documents, and considering the defence evidence, the Court found that the prosecution version suffered from serious evidentiary and forensic deficiencies. The Court held that the printouts of Twitter screenshots were not supported by a valid Section 65-B certificate and that the prosecution had failed to produce the complete electronic conversation relied upon in support of the allegations.

The defence contended that the electronic evidence was inadmissible owing to a defective Section 65-B certificate and that the prosecution had failed to establish the statutory ingredients of the alleged offences. The prosecution argued that the documentary and oral evidence sufficiently established the charges. The Court proceeded to examine these rival submissions in light of the evidence on record.

Key Observations

1.   A valid Section 65-B certificate was required for the secondary electronic evidence relied upon by the prosecution

The Court held that the screenshots and printouts marked as Ex.P2 were inadmissible because the accompanying certificate did not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 65-B(4), including particulars regarding the computer, device and process used to produce the electronic record. Relying on Arjun Panditrao Khotkar and Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap, the Court reiterated that compliance with Section 65-B is a condition precedent to the admissibility of electronic records.

2.   The essential ingredients of Section 66(C) were not established

The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 66(C), as there was no evidence that the accused fraudulently or dishonestly used another person’s password, electronic signature or unique identification feature. Since the prosecution did not prove such use, the charge of identity theft failed.

3.   The messages did not amount to obscene material under Section 67

The Court noted that the material relied upon by the prosecution included a poem using the complainant’s name, a crossed-fingers emoji, and a marriage proposal. It held that these communications did not amount to obscene or lascivious material within the meaning of Section 67, and that any grievance of defamation would have to be pursued separately.

4.   Exchange of messages was insufficient to prove stalking

The Court held that the prosecution had not produced the complete conversation between the parties or the full reply chain. Mere exchange of messages, without proof of repeated following or repeated attempts to foster personal interaction despite disinterest, was insufficient to establish stalking under Section 354D IPC.

5.   The investigation suffered from serious digital forensic lapses

The Court noted multiple deficiencies in the investigation, including the absence of hash values, incomplete mirror imaging, uncertainty about the chain of custody, and lack of clarity about the devices and systems used to generate the secondary evidence. These defects, the Court held, went to the root of the prosecution case and created serious doubt about the alleged offences.

6.   The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt

In view of the inadmissibility of Ex.P2 and the investigative deficiencies, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the offences under Sections 66(C) and 67 of the IT Act, and Sections 354D and 201 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The accused was therefore acquitted.

Direction Issued

The Court acquitted the accused of all charges and directed that MO.1 and MO.2 be returned after expiry of the appeal period. It also cancelled the bail bond and surety bond. 

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment is significant because it goes beyond a routine acquittal and addresses the evidentiary threshold for cybercrime prosecutions. It reaffirms that screenshots, printouts, and other electronic records cannot be relied upon unless the statutory requirements under Section 65-B are strictly met.

The ruling also clarifies that online conduct must be tested against the precise ingredients of the charged offences. A social media exchange, even if unpleasant or harassing, will not automatically amount to identity theft, obscenity, stalking, or evidence destruction unless the prosecution proves each statutory ingredient through admissible evidence.

Latest Legal Position

The decision reflects the settled position that Section 65-B compliance remains essential for admissibility of electronic records, subject to the recognised exceptions where the original device itself is produced by its owner or operator. It also reinforces that in prosecutions involving digital communication, courts will closely scrutinise authenticity, chain of custody, and forensic integrity before relying on screenshots or printouts.

The judgment further illustrates that Arjun Panditrao and Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap continue to govern the admissibility of secondary electronic evidence. Where the electronic material is defective or incomplete, the prosecution case may fail at the threshold.

Case Details

Court: XLV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru

Coram: Shri Ganapati Bhat, B.Sc., LL.B.(Spl.), L.L.M.

Case No.: C.C. No. 38462/2022

Date of Order: 30 April 2026

Bars Across Note

This ruling is a strong reminder that cybercrime prosecutions cannot rest on screenshots alone. When the prosecution relies on digital records, the chain of custody, forensic procedure, and statutory certification must all be watertight. 

The ruling highlights the importance of distinguishing between objectionable online conduct and conducts that attracts criminal liability under the Information Technology Act and the Indian Penal Code. That distinction assumes particular significance in cases involving social media disputes and allegations of electronic harassment.