Bombay High Court: Facebook Screenshots Alone Insufficient to Prove Fake Account

Bar&bench 

The Court made the observation while quashing charges of identity theft and obscenity against a man accused of defaming his brother-in-law through posts allegedly made from a fake Facebook account created by him.

The Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench recently ruled that printed screenshots of defamatory Facebook posts will not be sufficient to prove that they were created by a fake Facebook account [Mahesh Shivling Tilkari v State of Maharashtra].

The Court made the observation while quashing charges of identity theft and obscenity against a man accused of defaming his brother-in-law through posts allegedly made from a fake Facebook account created by him.

After going through the material submitted as evidence, a Bench comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice SG Chapalgaonkar stated,

“Print of screenshots of Facebook material will not at any stretch of imagination prove that the said post was created from an alleged fake account.”

The case began when the man’s brother-in-law filed a complaint with the Latur police station claiming that the man had created two fake Facebook accounts—one under the name “Minal Basavraj Swami” and another under “Chandra Surnal”— to post defamatory material about him and his family.

He alleged that the posts harmed his reputation and that of his family, particularly the man’s wife.

The complaint cited a marital dispute between the man and his wife as the possible motive behind the defamation.

However, the Court in its ruling observed that the investigation lacked sufficient evidence to link the accused to the creation of the fake accounts.

“Only the screenshots of Facebook, of which prints have been taken, are annexed after seizure and there are statements of two witnesses. Only on the basis of said material it cannot be said that the said Facebook posts were created by the man. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence against him, and it would be a futile exercise to ask him to face the trial,” the bench stated.

The Court further criticized the investigation, stating that it was conducted in total ignorance of provisions of law and by an investigator who appeared to lack training in detecting cyber crimes.

The accused argued that the evidence against him was insufficient to establish his involvement in the alleged cyber crimes.

The Court agreed with the same and pointed out that the investigation had failed to provide crucial evidence, such as IP address tracking or forensic analysis of the devices used to create the fake accounts.

“When it was specifically alleged in the First Information Report that two Facebook accounts have been fraudulently created, then the Investigating Officer ought to have got help of an expert to see from which IP address those accounts were created, whether any such electronic device of the said IP address is with the accused,” the Court said.