The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that conviction under Section 66-C of the Information Technology Act, 2000, for identity theft requires more than mere allegation - it demands credible, positive identification of the accused and concrete evidence linking them to the fraudulent use of another’s identity. This judgment underscores the necessity of evidentiary rigor in cybercrime prosecutions, particularly where digital anonymity complicates attribution.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arose from a complaint filed by the prosecutrix on 27 February 2018, alleging that an unknown person had created a fake Facebook profile in the name of "Lija Minj" and used five to six of her photographs without consent. She claimed to have traced the mobile number associated with the profile to the respondent, Arun Kumar Bhagat, and requested deletion of the images. While one profile was deleted, the respondent allegedly refused to remove the images from another.
Procedural History
- 27.02.2018: Prosecutrix filed written complaint (Ex.P-2) at Police Station Kansabel
- 2018: Charge-sheet filed against respondent under Section 66-C of the IT Act
- 23.03.2022: Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagicha, acquitted respondent due to lack of evidence
- 2023: State filed appeal under Section 378 CrPC challenging the acquittal
Relief Sought
The State sought to set aside the acquittal and secure a conviction against the respondent for impersonation and unauthorized use of personal photographs under Section 66-C IT Act.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 66-C of the IT Act can be invoked for identity theft when the prosecution fails to positively identify the accused, produce seized digital evidence, or establish who created the fake profile.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/State
The State contended that the respondent’s mobile number was linked to the fake profile, and his refusal to delete the images after request constituted clear evidence of culpable intent. It relied on the prosecutrix’s testimony and the fact that the respondent was the only person contacted regarding the profile. The State argued that technical complexities should not shield offenders, and that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel emphasized that the prosecutrix could not identify him in court, had initially lodged the complaint against an "unknown person," and produced no seized devices, screenshots, or digital forensics. He cited State of Maharashtra v. Suresh to argue that Section 66-C requires proof of intentional impersonation with dishonest motive, which was entirely absent in the absence of corroborative evidence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the evidentiary record and found the prosecution’s case fundamentally deficient. The prosecutrix, PW-1, admitted she did not know who created the fake profile and could not identify the respondent in court. No photographs were seized, no device was examined, and no IP or metadata evidence was produced to trace the profile to the respondent.
"The prosecution has failed to establish even a prima facie link between the respondent and the creation or maintenance of the fake Facebook profile. Mere association of a mobile number with a social media account, without corroboration, cannot substitute for proof of intentional impersonation."
The Court held that Section 66-C IT Act requires proof of two essential elements: (1) the dishonest taking of another person’s identity, and (2) the use of that identity for fraudulent or unlawful purposes. Neither was established. The trial court’s acquittal was not only legally sound but also constitutionally necessary to prevent wrongful conviction based on speculation.
The Court further noted that in cybercrime cases, the burden remains on the prosecution to present tangible, verifiable evidence. Reliance on uncorroborated oral testimony, especially where the complainant herself admits ignorance of the perpetrator’s identity, cannot sustain a conviction.
The Verdict
The State’s appeal was dismissed. The Court upheld the acquittal, holding that Section 66-C IT Act cannot be applied without positive identification of the accused and reliable evidence establishing intentional impersonation. The burden of proof was not discharged by the prosecution.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Positive Identification Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must now insist on direct identification of the accused in court or through digital forensics
- Mere association of a phone number with a social media account is insufficient for conviction under Section 66-C
- Prosecutors must secure seized devices, metadata logs, or IP traces to establish culpability
Digital Evidence Must Be Properly Preserved and Presented
- Unauthenticated screenshots or WhatsApp messages without chain-of-custody documentation are inadmissible as standalone proof
- Prosecution must file forensic reports under Section 65B of the Evidence Act for electronic records to be admissible
- Failure to preserve or produce digital evidence will result in automatic acquittal
Prosecution Cannot Rely on Suspicion Alone
- The judgment reinforces that Section 66-C is not a tool for vague complaints or personal vendettas
- Courts will not infer intent from silence or refusal to delete content without proof of ownership or control over the profile
- Defense counsel should routinely move for discharge where identification or intent is unproven
