SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1394

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
Anil S. Kilor, Pravin S. Patil, JJ.
Nishant S/o. Pradeep Agrawal - Appellant
Versus
Anti Terrorist Squad, Lucknow, through Investigating Officer, Uttar Pradesh - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 2024
Decided On : 01-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri Sunil Maohar, Sr.Advocate a/b Shri C.B.Barve, Advocate
For the Respondent: Shri S.S.Doifode, Addl.Public Prosecutor a/w Shri A.B.Badar, APP

Mens rea is essential for convictions under cyber terrorism and espionage statutes; negligence alone does not meet the threshold required for severe charges.

Headnote:(A) Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 66-F - Official Secrets Act, 1923 - Sections 3(1)(c) and 5(1)(a), (b), (c), (d) - Conviction for cyber terrorism and espionage based on unauthorized possession of classified documents and communication with foreign agents through social media - Life imprisonment and additional sentences imposed by the trial court were quashed, except for the conviction under Section 5(1)(d) for failure to take reasonable care. (Paras 2, 3, 130)

(B) Legal Standards for Cyber Terrorism - The intention to threaten the security of the state must be established to prove cyber terrorism under Section 66-F - Mens rea is a crucial element for establishing guilt. (Paras 106, 113)

(C) Negligence vs. Intent - Section 5(1)(d) indicates negligence without intent, while other sections require willfulness. (Paras 44, 106)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted under multiple counts for alleged espionage activities involving classified defense materials. The prosecution presented evidence of unauthorized access and communications with foreign agents; however, the evidence was found insufficient to meet the burden of proof for the charges of severe espionage, except for negligence in handling sensitive information. (Paras 1-129)

Findings of Court:
The trial court's findings were predominantly based on the assumption of guilt without established mens rea. The lack of significant negative reports on the accused’s conduct during employment suggested that prosecution failed to prove malicious intent. The court emphasized the need for a higher standard of proof given the serious nature of charges. (Paras 106, 129)

Issues: The central issues revolved around the determination of whether the accused acted with the requisite intent for espionage under the relevant laws and whether his actions constituted a breach of conduct leading to the alleged charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that without clear evidence of the accused's intention to undermine national security, the evidence presented did not establish the charges of cyber terrorism or serious espionage, leading to the partial allowance of the appeal. (Paras 116, 130)

Result: Conviction under Section 5(1)(d) of the Official Secrets Act maintained; all other convictions quashed and set aside.

Table of Content
1. conviction details and charges (Para 2)
2. summary of prosecution claims against the accused (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. defendant’s defense strategies outlined (Para 24 , 33)
4. prosecution's failure to prove intent (Para 28 , 29)
5. justification of the elements required for conviction (Para 30 , 39 , 115)
6. mens rea as essential for conviction (Para 35 , 106)
7. conduction of testimonial evidence examined (Para 118 , 120)
8. final ruling against prosecution's claims (Para 129)

JUDGMENT :

Anil S. Kilor, J.

1. Heard.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code questioning the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 3rd June, 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Nagpur in Sessions Case No.726 of 2021, thereby convicting the appellant for offences punishable under Section 66-F of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2000”) read with Section 3(1)(c) and Section 5(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1923”).

3. The appellant is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 66-F of the Act of 2000. He is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fourteen years under Section 3(1)(c) of the Act of 1923 and is further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for six months under Section 5(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) and Section 5(3) of the Act of 1923.

4. As recorded by the trial Court, it is the case of the prosecution that the informant Harishanker Mishra (PW-1) filed a First Information Report stating that he received secret information that Neha Sharma and Pooja Ranjan were operating the Facebook accounts in the fake names from Pakistan. The said foreign agents and spy are in contact via Internet through these Facebook accounts with the unknown employees holding important posts in various defence establishments in India. Important data was leaked through them, which was pertaining to National Security. The ID of Neha Sharma was URL https://www.facebook.com/100009767463432 and email ID was braveneha@yahoo.com and the ID of Pooja Rajan was URL https://www.facebook.com/100009951960524 and the email ID was poojaranjan923@gmail.com. These Facebook accounts were operated from Pakistan and it was likely to adversely affect the sovereignty, integrity and security of India, which was directly useful to an enemy. So, he filed the report at ATS, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

5. The offence was registered vide Crime No.7 of 2018 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 121A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 66-F of the Act of 2000 and under Sections 3, 4, 5, 9 of the Act of 1923.

6. The proposal for sanction order under Section 13(3) of the Act of 1923 was sent to the Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The investigation was handed over to the Investigating Officer Inspector Pankaj Awasthi, ATS Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur. For the investigation purpose, he received the copy of report, general diary and related documents.

7. After going through the report, he recorded the statement of Inspector Harishankar Mishra, the informant, and Yogendranath Shukla, the Head Constable, who registered the offence. He issued the letter to the Director, Indian Computer Emergency Response Team, Ministry of Information and Technology, Government of India, Delhi and sought the details of Facebook accounts and IP, creation IP address and other relevant details. He issued letter by official e-mail to Deputy Superintendent of Police Sonkar.

8. He opened the Facebook accounts of Pooja Ranjan and Neha Sharma and found two Scientists, namely Debmalya Roy and Aarti Kolhe, working in DMSRDE, Kanpur and accused Nishant Agrawal, working at BrahMos Aerospace, Nagpur are in the friend-list of Pooja Ranjan and Neha Sharma. With the help of Cert-In, New Delhi, the Inves

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top