In a compelling judgment addressing the intersection of technology, child safety, and criminal law, the Delhi High Court examined whether the circulation of morphed obscene images of a minor, coupled with online threats, amounted to offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). The case raised critical questions about the psychological harm of cyberbullying, the evidentiary value of digital material, and the responsibility of the justice system to secure safe digital spaces for children.
Brief facts:
The case arose from a complaint by the mother of a Class IX student alleging that her daughter received obscene morphed images and threatening messages on WhatsApp. The images depicted the victim’s face superimposed onto a nude body, accompanied by threats of circulation online if she did not comply with the sender’s demands. Investigation linked the offending number to the appellant, Rajesh Gambhir, who ran a mobile shop. On his apprehension, a phone containing the morphed images, the SIM card used, and two other handsets were recovered. Forensic analysis confirmed that the obscene content had been sent from his device to the victim’s tablet. The trial court convicted him under the provisions of the IPC, IT Act, and POCSO Act, awarding concurrent sentences with a maximum of five year’s rigorous imprisonment. He then appealed the conviction and sentence before the Delhi High Court.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellant contended that he had been falsely implicated, pointing to contradictions in the prosecution’s case, including the complainant’s omission to specify the device model or the date of the obscene messages in the initial complaint. He argued that the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., introducing the use of her mother’s tablet, created doubt by suggesting two devices were involved, while neither the tablet nor screenshots were shown to key witnesses in court, inviting an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act. The defence further questioned the reliability of the digital evidence, citing inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding CDR printouts and the Samsung J7 phone, lack of a Section 65B certificate, and the fact that the number in question was registered to one Ramesh who was never traced. It was also urged that procedural lapses, including inconsistencies in the arrest and disclosure statement and the failure to examine the possibility of IMEI tampering, undermined the prosecution’s case.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The State maintained that the victim and her mother gave consistent and corroborative testimonies, with the victim confirming receipt of morphed nude images and threats on her tablet, supported by her mother’s deposition. The prosecution relied on the FSL report, which confirmed the presence of obscene material on the appellant’s phone, identical to that sent to the victim, and on the recovery of the handset and SIM card at his instance. Further, CDR analysis established a technical link between the offending number and the appellant’s registered number, connecting him directly to the offence. It was contended that the trial court’s conviction rested on a sound appreciation of evidence and therefore warranted no interference.
Observation of the Court:
The Court noted that the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that obscene morphed images and threatening messages were sent from WhatsApp to the victim’s number, stating, “The material on record establishes that obscene and morphed photographs, along with threatening messages, were sent from WhatsApp number 78XXXXXX45 to the WhatsApp number 96XXXXX55 belonging to the victim, a minor girl.” Forensic evidence, including the FSL report, confirmed the images originated from the appellant’s Samsung J7 phone, with the Court observing, “The FSL report categorically confirms that the obscene pictures and threatening messages sent to the WhatsApp number of the victim (being used on her Samsung tablet) were in fact transmitted from the phone recovered at the instance of the accused..”
The Court dismissed the appellant’s claim of inconsistencies in device references (mobile vs. tablet), clarifying, “The terms 'mobile‘ and 'tablet‘ appear to have been used interchangeably by the witnesses. Importantly, the record shows that the only device seized and examined in this case was the Samsung Tablet, and no other mobile phone of the victim is on record.” It further established a clear link between the appellant and the offending number through CDR and IMEI analysis, noting, “The prosecution has successfully established a clear link between the accused and the mobile number 78XXXXXX35, from which the obscene messages and pictures were sent to the prosecutrix.”
Addressing the legal provisions, the Court upheld convictions under Sections 354A(iii), 354D, 509, and 506 of the IPC, finding that the appellant’s acts of sending morphed images constituted sexual harassment, stalking, insult to modesty, and criminal intimidation. Under the POCSO Act, the Court affirmed that the morphed images amounted to “sexually explicit representation of a child” under Sections 11(v) and 13, punishable under Sections 12 and 14, respectively. The IT Act offences under Sections 67 and 67B were upheld, as the images were “obscene, indecent and sexually explicit,” rejecting the appellant’s contention that they did not appeal to prurient interest.
The Court highlighted the societal implications of cybercrimes, particularly against minors, observing, “The psychological impact on a minor who receives a morphed nude photograph of herself, combined with a threat that the same will be published online… is difficult to quantify.” It stressed the need for safe digital spaces, stating, “Creating a safe environment for children cannot be restricted to physical spaces alone. The modern world demands that equal protection be extended to digital spaces.” The Court also emphasised the misuse of technology, noting, “The appellant herein chose to operate from behind the veil of a mobile device and internet connectivity, believing he could escape the reach of law enforcement agencies.”
The Court emphasised deterrence, affirming that “crimes committed in cyberspace against children are taken with utmost seriousness and will attract consequences that reflect the gravity of the impact on the victim.”
The decision of the Court:
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court’s judgment of conviction and order on sentence. Rajesh Gambhir remains convicted under Sections 354A(iii), 354D, 509, and 506 of the IPC; Sections 67 and 67B of the IT Act; and Sections 11(v)/12 and 13/14 of the POCSO Act, with all sentences to run concurrently, the maximum being five years’ rigorous imprisonment.
Case Title: Rajesh Gambhir Vs. State Gnct Of Delhi And Anr
Case No.: CRL.A. 141/2025, CRL.M.(BAIL) 243/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 965/2025
Coram: Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocate for Appellant: Advs. Ashish Sehrawat, Kapil Yadav, Nikhil Yadav
Advocate for Respondent: APP Naresh Kumar Chahar, Adv. Puja Mann
Picture Source :
