Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Anurag Sharma on 11 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. JYOTI MAHESHWARI,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-05,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
CBI vs. ANURAG SHARMA
FIR No. RC221/2016/E0033/New Delhi
Branch : CBI/EO-III/New Delhi
Under Section: 67B, Information Technology Act
Case No : CBI/449/2019
Date of Institution :02.05.2017
Date of Reserving :28.05.2025
Date of Pronouncement :11.06.2025
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the : CBI/449/2019 case
b) Date of commission of : July, 2015 offence
c) Name of the : Sh. T.S. Thapliyal complainant
d) Name, parentage and : Anurag Sharma address of the accused S/o Late Sh. Amarnath Sharma R/o. A-92, Adhyapak Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi-110041
e) Offence complained of : Section 67B of Information Technology Act, 2000.
f) Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not guilty
g) Final Order : CONVICTION
h) Date of Decision : 11.06.2025
CBI vs Anurag Sharma Page no. 1 of 31
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.06.11
17:08:26
+0530
1. Vide this Judgment, the Court shall determine whether the accused, Anurag Sharma, is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, for which he is charged in the present case.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present case, are that a written complaint was filed by T.S. Thapliyal, Inspector of Police, CBI, EOU-IX, New Delhi, alleging that one person, namely, Anurag Sharma indulged in collection, browsing, downloading and distribution of material, depicting children in sexually explicit acts, in electronic form using internet/ computer resources on 27.09.2015, by using the IP address 103.28.252.143. The complaint culminated into registration of the present RC on 27.10.2016 under Section 67 B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 [ hereinafter, "the IT Act"] and investigation was commenced in the present case.
3. It is further alleged that during investigation, search was conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) at the residential premises of accused Anurag Sharma at Nangloi, Delhi on 03.11.2016, during which one white colour Sony Vaio Laptop and one black colour modem along with adapter were recovered from the bedroom of accused Anurag Sharma, which were sealed and seized. The seized articles were thereafter sent to the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (hereinafter,"C-DAC"), Thiruvananthapuram, CBI vs Anurag Sharma Page no. 2 of 31 Digitally signed by JYOTI MAHESHWARI JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.06.11 17:08:31 +0530 Kerala, for forensic examination and expert opinion. The expert from C-DAC, upon an analysis of the hard disk contained in the laptop, observed in the Cyber Forensic Analysis Report (Ex. PW3/1), inter alia, that video files pertaining to children engaging in sexually explicit acts, were detected and extracted from the device. As per the report, about 183 files containing child sexual exploitative and abuse material (hereinafter "CSEAM") were found in the in-built hard disk of the seized laptop. By way of a further report (Ex. PW3/3), the C-DAC expert opined no malware, or malicious software was found on the hard disk, and that no application indicative of remote login activity, was observed.
4. Further, the seized laptop was password-protected and only after the disclosure of password by the accused, the system could be logged into. Moreover, investigation revealed that the IP Address, as mentioned in the complaint, was used by the accused and pursuant to the demise of his father, the accused had been regularly paying the monthly rent for the said Internet connection to the service provider, Classic Cable TV Networks.
5. Based on the above investigation, it was concluded by CBI, that during the years 2015 and 2016, the accused Anurag Sharma collected, browsed and downloaded CSEAM material, in electronic form and thus, committed the offence under Section 67B, IT Act. A Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
CBI vs Anurag Sharma 2025.06.11 Page no. 3 of 31 17:08:35 +0530 chargesheet was filed against the accused Anurag Sharma on 02.05.2017.
COGNIZANCE & SUMMONING
6. Vide Order dated 17.01.2018, the Court took cognizance of the offence as disclosed in the charge sheet, and accordingly, the accused, Anurag Sharma, was summoned. Upon his appearance, the accused was admitted to bail by the Court and was furnished with a copy of the charge sheet along with its annexures, in compliance of Section 207, CrPC.
CHARGE
7. The accused initially moved an application for plea-bargaining, but the same was refused by the prosecution, on account of the nature of the offence. Subsequently, arguments on charge were heard in detail and vide Order dated 24.09.2019, charge under Section 67B (b), IT Act was ordered to be framed against the accused. The charge was formally framed on 03.12.2019, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The accused also admitted certain documents and articles u/s 294 CrPC and as a result, 7 witnesses were dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, the matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
CBI vs Anurag Sharma Page no. 4 of 31
Digitally signed by
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
Date: 2025.06.11
17:08:41 +0530
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
8. The prosecution, to prove and substantiate its case, has examined 7 witnesses, whose details are provided below
a) PW-1 Kunal Anand: Proprietor of Classic Cable TV Network, who deposed about Classic Cable TV, being the reseller of ANI Network Pvt. Ltd. and the internet connection in the name of Amarnath Sharma, the late father of accused and after his death, the details of the accused were taken, for the Internet connection. He also exhibited the following documents in his deposition:
S. No. Exhibit No. Description
1. Ex.PW1/A Production-cum seizure memo dated
08.11.2016
2. Ex.PW1/B Documents containing application form no.
21673 in the name of Amarnath Sharma and containing the individual IP address 10.42.22.74.
3. Ex.PW1/C Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act
b) PW-2 Sh. Arun Kumar Singh, Nodal Officer, ANONET (the- then ANI Network Pvt. Ltd.), Delhi was examined next. He had sent a letter dated 23.02.2017 addressed to CBI, regarding information sought by CBI in respect of IP Address dated 103.28.252.143 and the document was exhibited as Ex. PW2/1. He also explained the difference between a public IP address and a private IP address, upon CBI vs Anurag Sharma Page no. 5 of 31 Digitally signed by JYOTI MAHESHWARI JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.06.11 17:08:46 +0530 specific queries of the Ld. Counsel for accused, during his cross- examination.
c) PW-3 Sh. Nabeel Koya A, Examiner, Cyber Security Group, C-
DAC, Thiruvananthapuram, was an Expert witness. He examined the laptop containing the hard disk, as well as the modem, which were seized from the residential premises of the accused. He also exhibited the following documents:
S. No. Exhibit No. Description
1. Ex. PW3/1 (colly) Report of Cyber Security Group i.e. SCG
no. CDAC/CSG/2016-16
CBI/AR/MARCH/2017 dated 16.03.2017
2. Ex. PW3/2 Intimation letter sent to CBI office dated 17.03.2017.
3. Ex. PW3/3 II Report of Cyber Security Group i.e. CSG No. -CDAC/CSG/2016-16A CBI/AR/APRIL /2017 dated 18.04.2017.
4. Ex. PW3/4 Intimation letter sent to CBI office dated 20.04.2017.
d) PW-4 Mr. Raman Tyagi, the-then SP, CBI, EO-III, New Delhi & Forwarding Officer of the present chargesheet. He entrusted the case to the IO, Sh. Samar Pal Rana (PW-5) and the letters to C-DAC, were sent by him, which are exhibited as follows:
S. No. Exhibit No. Description
1. Ex. PW4/A FIR dated 27.10.2016 and RC no.
CBI vs Anurag Sharma Page no. 6 of 31
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.06.11
17:08:51
+0530
221/2016/E0033.
2. Ex. PW4/B Letter sent to Director C-DAC dated
07.11.2016
3. Ex. PW4/C Letter sent to Director C-DAC dated
03.01.2017
4. Ex. PW4/D Letter sent to Director C-DAC dated
28.03.2017.
5. Ex. PW4/E Charge-sheet dated 25.04.2017
e) PW-5 Sh. Samar Pal Rana is the Investigating Officer (IO) of the
present case. He examined the following documents during his deposition:
Sr. Exhibit No. Description
No.
1. Ex. PW5/1 Production cum seizure memo dated
23.02.2017
2. Ex. PW5/2 (Colly) Medical documents in the name of Sh.
Abhinav Sharma
3. Ex. PW5/3(Colly) Invoice for purchase of Sony Vaio
Laptop in the name of Anurag Sharma
and Warranty Card
4. Ex. PW5/4 (Colly) Production cum seizure memo dated
28.03.2017
5. Ex. PW5/5 (Colly) Letter by Sub-Registrar (Birth and Death) NG Zone, regarding death verification of Amarnath Sharma
6. Ex. PW5/6 Letter dated 24.03.2017 issued by S.P. Rana to Sub-Registrar NG Zone, MCD, New Delhi.
7. Ex. PW5/7 Production cum seizure memo dated CBI vs Anurag Sharma Page no. 7 of 31 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.06.11 17:08:56 +0530 22.03.2017
8. Ex. PW5/D1 Warranty card of the laptop
f) PW-6 Sh. Deepak Kumar Gupta, Inspector (Vigilance), Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, New Delhi, was a witness to the search conducted at the residential premises of the accused on 03.11.2026 and testified regarding the same. He admitted the search list (Ex. A2), the laptop (Ex. A14) and the modem (Ex. A15).
g) PW-7 Sh. Tejender Singh Thapliyal, Inspector, Special Unit, CBI, New Delhi, is the complainant in the present case and had submitted the complaint dated 26.09.2016. He also deposed that he submitted the complaint, on the same day, as he received the source information.
9. Subsequently, the prosecution evidence was closed on 16.04.2025 and the matter was listed for recording the statement of the accused, u/S. 313, CrPC.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED U/S 313 CrPC
10. The statement of the accused was recorded on 07.05.2025, wherein he categorically denied having participated in the search proceedings at any point in time. He alleged that his signatures were obtained on blank papers at the CBI office. The accused further denied any involvement in collecting, browsing, downloading, or distributing CBI vs Anurag Sharma Page no. 8 of 31 Digitally signed by JYOTI MAHESHWARI JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.06.11 17:09:00 +0530 any content pertaining to Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material (CSEAM). He asserted that the laptop seized by the CBI did not belong to him and that a false case had been registered against him due to a faulty and improper investigation conducted by the CBI. Despite these assertions, the accused declined to lead any evidence in his defence. Accordingly, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
11. Detailed final arguments were advanced on behalf of both the prosecution and the accused. Ld. PP for CBI has submitted that the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, during the course of trial. Pursuant to registration of RC in the present case, the search was conducted at the residential premises of the accused on 03.11.2016. During the search, a Sony Vaio laptop, containing the in-built hard disk and the D-Link Modem, was recovered, as is evident from the search list (Ex.A2) and the same has been admitted by the accused, vide his statement u/S. 294, CrPC, recorded on 05.02.2020. The factum of search of the residential premises of the accused was established by the testimony of PW6 Deepak Kumar Gupta, who was an independent witness to the search proceedings as well as the IO, who was examined as PW5. The invoice (Ex. PW 5/3) dated 04.02.2014, shows the purchase of laptop in the name of the accused. Further, the laptop in question, was recovered from the bedroom of accused and was password- protected and could only be logged into, after the password "rediffmail@77" was CBI vs Anurag Sharma Page no. 9 of 31 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.06.11 17:09:05 +0530 disclosed by the accused and none of the other family members of the accused were aware of the password of the laptop. This fact lends credence to the exclusive usage of the laptop by the accused.
12. Moreover, the IP address mentioned in the complaint dated 26.09.2016 was proved to be used by the accused, vide letter dated 23.02.2017 (Ex. PW2/1) and the testimonies of PW-1 Kunal Anand and PW-2 Arun Kumar Singh. PW-1, being the proprietor of Classic Cable TV Networks, the Internet service Provider of accused, deposed that the late father of the accused, Sh. Amarnath Sharma, had taken the internet connection, in his name. He further testified that after his father's demise, the accused submitted his Voter ID card and photographs to the said ISP and the accused himself had been regularly paying the monthly rent for the said internet connection. PW-1 also proved the documents, showing the Customer Application Form (Ex. PW1/B) as well as the submission of identity documents, by the accused.
13. Furthermore, the C-DAC expert, after analyzing the hard disk contained in the laptop, has observed in its Report (Ex. PW3/1) that 183 video files (Normal-95, Deleted-5, Hidden-83) related to CSEAM material were found in the device and such files were created, last written and last accessed during the year 2015 and 2016. The report further revealed the presence of a user-created folder named ' Pedo' and 'Recovered Folders' at locations 'E/ProgramData/Pedo' and 'E/Recovered Folders' respectively, in which these 183 CSEAM files CBI vs Anurag Sharma Page no. 10 of 31 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.06.11 17:09:09 +0530 were found present. Moreover, the second report by C-DAC (Ex. PW3/3), filed in April 2017, clearly showed that no malware or malicious software was found on the hard disk and no remote login activity or any application pertaining to the same, was found in the device. It is contended on behalf of CBI that both these reports were proved by the expert witness, PW 3 Nabeel Koya in his testimony and this expert evidence, conclusively establishes that the accused Anurag Sharma, was engaged in the collection, browsing and downloading of CSEAM material, in electronic form, using his laptop during 2015 and 2016 and thus, he committed the offence u/S. 67 B(b) of the IT Act, 2000.
14. Per contra, Ld. Counsels for accused have vehemently opposed the version of the prosecution and submitted that there are glaring deficiencies in the case of the prosecution, which entitle the accused for an acquittal. The following grounds have been raised by Ld. Counsels for the accused:-
(a) The model number of the laptop in question, on the warranty card (Ex. PW5/D1) and its model number on the search list (Ex. A2) are different, thereby leading to an inference that the laptop which was sent to C-DAC, does not belong to the accused. It is further submitted that the Media Access Control (MAC) address of the laptop, has also not been provided by CBI and thus, there is no unique identifying characteristic to identify the device in question, which was allegedly seized from the accused.
Digitally CBI vs Anurag Sharma signed by Page no. 11 of 31 JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.06.11 17:09:17 +0530
(b) There is an unexplained delay of 14 months in filing of the present RC and the same has not been explained by the prosecution.
(c) The CDAC report (Ex. PW3/3) contains certain files which were created much before 04.02.2014 i.e. the admitted date of purchase of laptop, thereby casting a doubt that the files containing CSEAM material were implanted in the hard disk and were not actually downloaded by the accused.
(d) The complaint in question mentions only a public IP address i.e. 103.28.252.142 and it is apparent from the testimony of PW-2 and other witnesses that the public IP address could be used by as many as 8-16 persons simultaneously and therefore, investigation is silent on the aspect that the offence in question could only have been committed by the accused.
(e) No person from the neighbourhood or the nearby locality were made witnesses to the search and thus the search allegedly conducted on 03.11.2016, at the residence of the accused, is itself subject to question.
(f) There is no evidence on record to show that the internet connection which was in the name of Late Sh. Amarnath Sharma was changed to the name of the accused and thus, it cannot be said that the internet connection was exclusively used by the accused.
JYOTI CBI vs Anurag Sharma MAHESHWARI Page no. 12 of 31 Digitally signed by JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date: 2025.06.11 17:09:21 +0530
(g) The destination IP is not provided in the CDAC report and thus, it cannot be said that the accused had committed the offence in question.
15. Ld. Counsels for the accused have placed reliance on the following decisions in support of their contentions:
a) Sunil Kumar Ghosh & Ors Vs State of West Bengal, (CRA No. 325/2005, Calcutta High Court dated 18.04.2008).
b) Jagbir Singh Vs State & Ors., (CLP No. 158/2016, Delhi High Court dated 09.03.2016).
c) Vinod Kumar Chauhan Vs State Through CBI & Ors.,[Tr.P. (Crl.) 88/2016, Delhi High Court, dated 21.12.2016].
d) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Bacchudas and Ors., (2007) 9 SCC
135.
e) Raghunath Vs State of Haryana and Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 398.
f) State of NCT of Delhi Vs Sudhir Kumar @ Bunti, (Crl. P. No. 8/2016, Delhi High Court, dated 02.06.2016).
g) S. L. Goswami Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 716.
h) Krishnegowda & Ors. Vs State of Karnataka, AIR 2017 SC 1657.
16. Ld. PP for CBI rebutted the arguments raised on behalf of the accused and stated that the question regarding identification of the seized devices, was not put to the expert witnesses at the time of examination and cannot be raised subsequently, only by way of final CBI vs Anurag Sharma Page no. 13 of 31 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.06.11 17:09:26 +0530 arguments. Ld. PP for CBI has argued that new defence cannot be raised, at the time of final arguments, and the accused has failed in his endeavour to undermine the prosecution's case, by not examining any expert witnesses concerning the identification of the seized devices.
17. Ld. PP for CBI has also further argued that there is no question of fabrication of evidence or plantation of electronic devices, when the devices in question, were sealed immediately after seizure on 03.11.2016, in the presence of accused himself and were de-sealed only during the examination of witnesses, in the Court. It is further submitted that the discrepancy in the last digits in the description of the seized laptop is not material, as the seizure of the device was admitted by the accused vide his statement dated 05.02.2020, u/s 294 CrPC and the same cannot be questioned at this stage. The argument pertaining to delay in lodging the FIR and legality of the search conducted, has also been countered by Ld. PP for CBI.
18. Ld. PP for CBI, has furnished the following decisions, in furtherance of the prosecution's submissions:
a) Neeraj Dutta Vs State, (2023) 4 SCC 731.
b) Mobarik Ali Ahmed Vs The State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC
857.
c) R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs Arulmigu Visweswaraswami & ors., (2003) 8 SCC 752.
d) Sonu @ Amar Vs. State of Haryana (2017) 8 SCC 570.
e) Niranjan Vs State, 2020 SCC Online Del 135.
CBI vs Anurag Sharma Page no. 14 of 31
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.06.11
17:09:30
+0530
f) Shyam Narayan Ram Vs State of U.P, 2024 INSC 800.
g) Akhtar & Ors. Vs State of Uttaranchal, (2009) 13 SCC 722.
h) Mahavir Singh Vs State of Haryana, (2014) 6 SCC 716.
19. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and has perused the judicial decisions, relied upon by both the prosecution as well as the accused.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
20. Before delving into the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to first deal with the statutory provision, as invoked in the present case. The offence alleged against the accused is u/s 67 B (b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the same is reproduced as follows:
"67B. Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form. : Whoever,
-(a)publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted material in any electronic form which depicts children engaged in sexually explicit act or conduct; or
(b)creates text or digital images, collects, seeks, browses, downloads, advertises, promotes, exchanges or distributes material in any electronic form depicting children in obscene or indecent or sexually explicit manner; or
(c)cultivates, entices or induces children to online relationship with one or more children for and on sexually explicit act or in a manner that may offend a reasonable adult on the computer resource; or
(d)facilitates abusing children online, or
(e)records in any electronic form own abuse or that of others pertaining to sexually explicit act with children, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may CBI vs Anurag Sharma Digitally Page no. 15 of 31 signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.06.11 17:09:35 +0530 extend to seven years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees:
Provided that provisions of section 67, section 67A and this section does not extend to any book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting representation or figure in electronic form-(i)the publication of which is proved to be justified as being for the public good on the ground that such book, pamphlet, paper, writing drawing, painting representation or figure is in the interest of science, literature, art or learning or other objects of general concern; or(ii)which is kept or used for bona fide heritage or religious purposes.
Explanation. -For the purposes of this section "children"
means a person who has not completed the age of 18 years."
21. The contours of the provision, were recently clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled Just Rights for Children Alliance V. S. Harish, 2024 INSC 716 and it was held as under:
"(ii) Section 67B sub-section (b): - a. It penalizes the creation of any text or image-based content in any electronic form, that depict children in any obscene or indecent or sexually explicit manner. It further penalizes the collection, solicitation, browsing i.e., online viewing, or downloading of such material.
Thus, even the mere viewing of any child pornographic material that is stored in a mobile phone would tantamount to 'browsing' of such material in electronic form. (emphasis supplied). Lastly, it also penalizes the advertising, promotion, exchange or distribution of any such material. Here again, what is punishable is only the actual commission of any of the above-mentioned acts.
b. The scope of Section 67B sub-section (b), is more expansive than the preceding sub-section because, (i) first, the term 'material' here includes any electronic content depicting children in sexually explicit acts, as well as in obscene or indecent contexts, and (ii) secondly, the actus reus encompasses not just the act of disseminating but also the acts of creating, propagating, or engaging with or using such material. c. In other words, Section 67B sub-section (b) penalizes the actual commission of any of the following: - i. the act of producing or creating any text or digital image based electronic material (incl. videos) that depict children in any obscene, indecent or sexually explicit manner; ii. the act of engaging or using such material by way of collecting, browsing, CBI vs Anurag Sharma Page no. 16 of 31 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.06.11 17:09:40 +0530 accessing, downloading, saving, seeking, actively searching such material from any computer resource, and; iii. the act of facilitating or propagating the circulation or dissemination of such material by advertising, promoting, exchanging or sharing, distributing or offering for sale such material from any computer resource on the internet."
22. Therefore, a bare reading of the above provisions shows that Section 67 B of the IT Act is widely worded, and it aims to penalize not just the transmission or sharing of CSEAM material but also the online viewing or downloading of such material. Keeping this in mind, the Court shall now examine whether the accused is guilty of commission of the offence under Section 67(B) (b) of IT Act, 2000.
23. The case of the prosecution hinges on the receipt of a source information, that a person was engaged in collection and download of CSEAM material, depicting children in sexually explicit acts in electronic form, using internet/ computer resources on 29.07.2015 at 13:41:24 hrs, by using the IP address 103.28.252.143. Pursuant to the same, search was conducted by CBI at the residential premises of the accused Anurag Sharma, wherein, one white coloured Sony Vaio Laptop and one black colour modem, along with adapter was recovered from the bedroom of the accused. Furthermore, it was the accused, who himself disclosed the login password of the laptop as "rediffmail@77" and consequently, the laptop could be logged into.
24. Further, both the laptop containing the in-built hard disk and modem were sent for forensic examination to the office of C-DAC, CBI vs Anurag Sharma Page no. 17 of 31 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.06.11 17:09:44 +0530 Thiruvananthapuram and as per the report, Ex. PW3/1, it was revealed that 183 video files showing CSEAM material were found in the seized laptop and this report, Ex. PW3/1 confirmed the downloaded and collection of such material by the accused. By way of a further (Ex. PW 3/3), it was observed by the C-DAC expert that neither any malware/ malicious software nor any application showing the remote login activity in the laptop of the accused, could be discerned. Thus, it lent credence to the version of the prosecution, that it was only the accused who had collected, browsed and downloaded the CSEAM material.
Discrepancies in the description of seized devices by CBI
25. The most important ground raised on behalf of the accused, challenging the version of the prosecution, is that the serial number of the laptop, as mentioned in the search list (Ex. A2) and the warranty card (Ex. PW5/D1) are different. The search list mentions the device model number SVF152C1WW, but it was mentioned in the warranty card as SCF15212SNWIN5. The incorrect model number of the device was also mentioned in the letter sent to C-DAC, Thiruvananthapuram for examination, as is evident from Ex. PW3/1 and Ex. PW3/2. On this basis, it has been argued on behalf of the accused that the laptop which was allegedly seized from the residence of the accused, is not the same laptop, which was purchased by the accused. It is further contended by the accused that this leads to the inference that the said device bearing Model No. SVF152C1WW, could have been planted by the CBI CBI vs Anurag Sharma Page no. 18 of 31 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.06.11 17:09:49 +0530 officials, to falsely implicate the accused. This contention of the accused, notwithstanding its ingenuity, does not withstand the legal scrutiny.
26. It is pertinent to note that the perusal of other details, show that a unique number 54580123 is mentioned below the bar code on the warranty card (Ex. PW5/D1) and the above number i.e. 54580123 is also an identifier of the laptop in question. This unique number 54580123 is also mentioned in the correspondence sent to C-DAC (Ex. PW3/1 & Ex. PW3/2). Moreover, the issue concerning the discrepancy in the details of the seized device was also raised, during the cross- examination of the Investigating Officer (IO), during which he testified that the number mentioned in the warranty card (Ex. PW5/D1) also appears in the C-DAC report (Ex. PW3/3), specifically on page 3 at point A and is also mentioned in the production cum seizure memo dated 23.03.2017 (Ex. PW5/1).
27. It is not the case of the accused today that this number i.e. 54580123, is not a unique identifying number of the laptop, which was purchased by the accused. The laptop in question can be clearly identified through this distinct number and the same is also mentioned in the CDAC report Ex. PW3/3. Thus, the apprehension of the accused that the laptop sent for forensic examination, is not the same device, as the one recovered from the accused, is put to rest, through the above discussion. Interestingly, the warranty card of the device in question CBI vs Anurag Sharma Page no. 19 of 31 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.06.11 17:09:53 +0530 (Ex. PW5/D1) was produced by the brother of the accused himself, namely, Abhinav Sharma. Moreover, the invoice received from Croma Store (Ex. PW5/4) also shows the number 0027141, which is the same as the one mentioned in the warranty card i.e. Ex. PW5/D1.
28. No doubt, there is a discrepancy in mentioning the model number of device in the search list and the same has been admitted by the prosecution, but the only question before the Court currently, is whether this discrepancy is material in nature and is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions has held that minor discrepancies, such as typographical errors or slight variations in the description of items are generally treated as irregularities and do not affect the identity of the seized property. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheodhyan Singh and Ors. v. Sanichara Kuer and Ors. AIR (1963) SC 1879, held that a clerical error in the plot number was a mere mis-description and did not affect the identity of the property, as the boundary and other details were clearly mentioned. Therefore, the discrepancies/ errors in the description of items in the search list, are not uncommon and do not affect the credibility of the case of the prosecution, unless they are material in nature. Despite the mis-description of the model number of the laptop, the unique number 54580123, identifies the device in question and is uniformly mentioned across all the documents and thus, does not affect the identity of the seized device.
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
CBI vs Anurag Sharma Page no. 20 of 31
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
Date: 2025.06.11
17:09:58 +0530
29. Additionally, in the present case, it must also be seen that the accused himself, vide his statement u/s 294 CrPC, recorded on 05.02.2020, clearly admitted the factum of seizure of laptop and modem from his residence and now the same cannot be put to naught or denied by the accused, as per his convenience at the stage of final arguments. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonu @ Amar v. State of Haryana, (2017) 8 SCC 570, has held as under:
"Section 294 CrPC,1973 provides a procedure for filing documents in a Court by the prosecution or the accused. The documents have to be included in a list and the other side shall be given an opportunity to admit or deny the genuineness of each document. In case the genuineness is not disputed, such document shall be read in evidence without formal proof in accordance with the Evidence Act."(emphasis supplied).
30. The above decision has further been relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent decision of Shyam Narain Ram v. State of UP, 2024 INSC 800, while upholding the admission of the accused u/S. 294, CrPC of the Autopsy Report prepared by the Doctor and the Recovery memos, prepared by the Investigating Officer.
31. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the accused, vide his statement, has only admitted the existence and preparation of the document and not the truth of the contents thereof and thus, he has not admitted to the contents of the search list in question and the same cannot be held against him. In the considered opinion of the Court, there cannot be a partial admission u/S. 294, CrPC. Once the accused has admitted the seizure of certain articles from his residence before CBI vs Anurag Sharma Page no. 21 of 31 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.06.11 17:10:04 +0530 the Court, he cannot then resile from the same and say that the device/laptop seized is not the same, as the one belonging to him. If such a course were to be adopted, there would be no sanctity left to the judicial proceedings, as any party to a case would start objecting to the documents or the articles admitted by him and will later deny the same, depending on his convenience. Such an approach cannot be permitted to continue and if allowed, will erode the very basis of the judicial proceedings.
32. Moreover, such a contention, if any, ought to have been raised at the initial stage--specifically during the tendering of the document into evidence and not at the stage of final arguments. In this regard, this Court is reminded of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & Ors., 2003 (8) SCC 752, wherein it was held as follows:
".......Ordinarily, an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes:- (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken before the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as CBI vs Anurag Sharma Page no. 22 of 31 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.06.11 17:10:10 +0530 an exhibit. The later proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. On the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for two reasons: firstly, it enables the Court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then and there; and secondly, in the event of finding of the Court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the Court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both the parties. Out of the two types of objections, referred to hereinabove, in the later case, failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in superior Court.
33. The accused has also contended that the description of the MAC (Media Access Control) address of the Modem in the search list (Ex.
A-2) i.e. 6c7220768ecb, is different from the MAC address of the Modem, as mentioned in Ex. A-7, wherein it is mentioned as 6c7220768ecc. Such minor errors in description of articles, during investigation are common, especially where human handling is involved and do not by themselves, undermine the case of the prosecution, as has been dealt with above. Moreover, in any event, the recovery of modem is also admitted by the accused u/s 294 CrPC vide his statement dated 05.02.2020 and the same cannot be re-agitated for CBI vs Anurag Sharma Digitally signed Page no. 23 of 31 by JYOTI MAHESHWARI JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.06.11 17:10:16 +0530 the reasons, as discussed above. It is also pertinent to note that the C- DAC report (Ex. PW3/1), at page 11, specifically records that the MAC address of the hard disk, i.e., 30:F9:ED:AA:83:36, corresponds to the device, in which the hard disk was placed. This MAC address is identical to the one mentioned in the document (Ex. A-7) produced by the prosecution witness PW-1 and was proved to be used by the accused. This corroboration clearly establishes that the accused was using the same device, that was subsequently examined by C-DAC. Accordingly, the argument advanced on behalf of the accused appears to be more speculative than legally tenable.
Creation of Files Prior To The Date of Purchase of The Laptop
34. Ld. Counsel for the accused has pointed out that certain files, as mentioned in the second C-DAC Report (Ex. PW 3/3) were created prior to the admitted date of purchase of laptop i.e. 04.02.2014 (Ex.
PW5/3). The expert witness, PW-3 Nabeel Koya, who examined the devices, was questioned regarding the same, during his testimony and he deposed that he could not answer, as to whether the file created on date 15.07.2012 originated from the hard disk in question, which was in-built in the laptop seized from the accused. A question regarding the same was also put to the IO, who agreed that certain files mentioned in Annexure-II of the C-DAC report (Ex. PW3/3), were created before the date of purchase of laptop, but he also clarified the issue that the files could have been transferred subsequently, into the hard-disk after the creation of the same at an earlier date.
Digitally signedCBI vs Anurag Sharma by JYOTI Page no. 24 of 31 MAHESHWARI JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.06.11 17:10:23 +0530
35. It is correct that no question regarding the prior date of creation of files was sent to C-DAC, but the same is not sufficient to ipso facto, lead to the conclusion, that the hard disk in the laptop recovered from the accused, was tampered with and was subsequently planted by CBI.
It is pertinent to note that certain video files date back to the year 2007, almost one decade, prior to the present charge-sheet being filed. If this argument raised by Ld. Counsel for accused is to be believed, it would lead to the inference that CBI officials, in a pre-meditated effort, would have been planning to implicate the accused from 2007 onwards and were downloading files since 2007 and then, subsequently these were transferred to the in-built hard disk of the laptop belonging to the accused. Such a proposition appears implausible and borders on the absurd.
36. It is a matter of common prudence that certain files which may have been downloaded in another device or external hard disk, could have been transferred subsequently into the in-built hard disk of the laptop of the accused and one does not need the expertise of a technical genius, to understand this. There is no evidentiary basis to presume otherwise. The version put forth by the accused is entirely speculative and unsupported by any cogent material and hence cannot be relied upon.
JYOTI MAHESHWARI Digitally signed by CBI vs Anurag Sharma JYOTI MAHESHWARI Page no. 25 of 31 Date: 2025.06.11 17:10:28 +0530 Controversy regarding the public/ private IP used in the case
37. It is alleged on behalf of the accused that the IP address mentioned in the complaint filed by PW-7 is a public IP address i.e. 103.28.252.143 but the complaint does not mention any private IP address and thus, it cannot be said that it was only and only the accused, who could have committed the offence in question.
38. For a clearer appreciation of the controversy surrounding the public and private IP addresses, the testimony of PW-2, Sh. Arun Kumar Singh, Nodal Officer, ANONET (formerly ANI Network), becomes crucial. He deposed that a public IP address can be used simultaneously by approximately 8-16 users. However, a broadband subscriber cannot directly use a public static IP address. He further clarified that the IP address referred to in the complaint was a static public IP address, as confirmed in the letter (Ex. PW2/1) sent by him to the Investigating Officer. This public IP address had been allotted by ANI to Late Sh. Amarnath Sharma, the father of the accused.
39. The communication (Ex. PW2/1) further reveals that M/s Classic Cable TV Network, the local reseller/operator affiliated with ANI, had allotted the corresponding private (LAN) IP address 10.42.22.74 to the family of the accused. This is further corroborated by the testimony of PW-1, the representative of Classic Cable TV Network, and the production-cum-seizure memo (Ex. PW1/A). Additionally, following CBI vs Anurag Sharma JYOTI Page no. 26 of 31 MAHESHWARI Digitally signed by JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date: 2025.06.11 17:10:34 +0530 the demise of his father, the accused himself had submitted identity documents including his Voter ID card and photographs to M/s Classic Cable TV, which are placed on record as Ex. PW1/B. These documents are duly supported by the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex. PW1/C), thereby validating their admissibility.
40. From the above discussion, it is evident that the broadband connection bearing the public IP address was initially sold by ANI Network (now ANONET), and was subsequently resold by M/s Classic Cable TV, which allotted the individual/private IP address 10.42.22.74 which was in the use of the accused. It was only based on the information furnished by ANI Network to the Investigating Officer (IO), that the IP address could be accurately traced, thereby enabling the prosecution to link the commission of the offence to the accused.
41. Thus, the prosecution has successfully established a clear and traceable chain of evidence showing: (i) the allocation of the public IP address by ANI Network, (ii) the assignment of the corresponding private IP address by M/s Classic Cable TV to the accused's family, and (iii) the use of this connection by the accused on the device being exclusively used by him. This technical and documentary evidence cumulatively forms a sound basis to associate the digital activity in question, with the accused.
Digitally signed by JYOTI CBI vs Anurag Sharma JYOTI MAHESHWARI Page no. 27 of 31 MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.06.11 17:10:39 +0530 Delay in Lodging of FIR
42. It is contended on behalf of the accused that the offence in question pertains to 29.07.2015, but the complaint is dated 26.09.2016 and the FIR (RC) was lodged on 27.10.2016 and thus, there is an inordinate delay of about 14 months, in lodging the present FIR. This contention, in the humble opinion of the Court, is devoid of merit. The lodging of FIR (RC in the CBI case) is to be assessed from the date, when the information or knowledge regarding the commission of the offence, first comes to the notice of the informant or the concerned authority.
43. In the instant case, although the offence was allegedly committed in July 2015, the information pertaining to the same was received from the source by PW-7, Sh. T.S. Thapliyal on 26.09.2016 and a complaint was made on the same date. Pursuant to verification, the RC was registered on 27.10.2016 and was entrusted to the IO Sh. S.P. Rana. Thus, there is no delay in lodging the FIR in question and the accused has failed to show how the delay, if at all, has prejudiced him, in any manner.
Legality of the search conducted
44. The Ld. Counsel for accused has challenged the legality of the search conducted at the residential premises of the accused on 03.11.2016, primarily on the ground that no local or neighbourhood witnesses were associated with the search proceedings. However, the CBI vs Anurag Sharma Page no. 28 of 31 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.06.11 17:10:45 +0530 record clearly demonstrates that two independent witnesses had joined during the said search, one of whom, Sh. Deepak Gupta was examined as PW-6. The testimony of PW-6 has withstood the test of cross- examination and has conclusively established that, pursuant to the search and recovery, the seized articles were duly sealed with a brass seal. The same seal was entrusted to PW-6, thereby ensuring the integrity of the entire search proceedings. Further, it is significant to note that these devices remained sealed until they were first de-sealed in Court, during the examination of witnesses. This adds considerable weight to the prosecution's assertion regarding the sanctity of the seizure process and dispels any suspicion of tampering.
45. It is also contended that the names of a few constables, including a lady constable who assisted in the search, do not find mention in the search memo, as is evident from the testimony of PW-5 and PW-6.
However, this omission is not fatal to the prosecution's case. It is a routine procedure that searches are conducted with the assistance of police staff, including constables. The failure to specifically name them, in the search memo or in the statements under Section 161 CrPC, further amounts to a material irregularity, nor does it cause any prejudice to the accused. This position has been well recognized in judicial precedent, which holds that non-mention of names of support staff does not vitiate an otherwise lawful and properly conducted search (State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1872).
Digitally signed by JYOTI CBI vs Anurag Sharma JYOTI MAHESHWARI Page no. 29 of 31 MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.06.11 17:10:51 +0530 Lack of investigation on the destination IP
46. The last argument raised on behalf of the accused is that the destination IP of the various URLs and the sexually explicit material, involving children, was neither investigated upon by the IO nor was mentioned in the CDAC report (Ex. PW3/1). However, section 67 B of IT Act, does not mandate any investigation or recovery of the destination IP and only requires that the accused should have browsed, collected or downloaded the material, in electronic form, involving children in sexually explicit acts. The factum of collection is proved by the presence of 183 files, containing CSEAM material and the factum of browsing and download of such CSEAM material can be ascertained from the full path of the files, as mentioned in Annexure-V of Ex. PW3/1. The fact that these files were stored in the E drive of the hard disk of the laptop, which was exclusively used by the accused, proves the factum of download of such content and thus, all the ingredients of Section 67 B(b), IT Act, 2000, have been fulfilled in the present case.
47. Ld. Counsels for the accused have relied upon the well-
established principle of criminal jurisprudence that when two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, must be adopted. They have also placed reliance on various judicial precedents, reiterating this principle. However, in the present case, the evidence on record leaves no scope for two interpretations. The only plausible and reasonable view that emerges is that the accused has committed the offence in CBI vs Anurag Sharma Page no. 30 of 31 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.06.11 17:10:55 +0530 question. The prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence.
CONCLUSION
48. Therefore, upon a conspectus of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the prosecution has successfully proved the commission of the alleged offence by the accused, beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the accused Anurag Sharma is convicted of the offence u/s 67 B (b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
49. Copy of this Judgment be given to the convict, free of cost.
50. Before parting, this Court would like to underscore its appreciation for the Ld. Counsels for accused as well as Ld. PPs for CBI, for the superlative assistance rendered, during the trial and arguments of the present case. Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.06.11 17:10:59 +0530 (Jyoti Maheshwari) Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-05 Rouse Avenue Courts Complex Announced in the open Court on 11th June, 2025.
CBI vs Anurag Sharma Page no. 31 of 31