The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld a trial court’s decision that denied the accused access to the Facebook and Instagram accounts of a rape victim. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting an individual's right to privacy, particularly in sensitive criminal cases involving allegations of sexual violence.
The case involved Prahlad Rathour, a Food Inspector, accused of raping a woman who worked as a Zila Panchayat Member. According to the FIR filed on February 28, 2023, the victim alleged that Rathour concealed his marital status and later subjected her to sexual and physical abuse. The charge-sheet was filed in June 2023, and trial proceedings began shortly after.
Read Also:- Gang Rape Conviction | One Accused's Act Can Implicate All if Common Intention Exists: Supreme Court
During cross-examination, the defense requested access to the victim’s social media accounts, claiming that the photographs presented in the court had been edited and sourced from her Facebook and Instagram profiles. The defense also sought permission to play an audio recording allegedly involving the victim to verify the authenticity of her voice and use it for cross-examination.
However, the trial court rejected the plea, citing the victim’s right to privacy. Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, hearing the revision petition, upheld the trial court's decision. The Court observed:
Read Also:- Rajasthan HC Upholds Girl Child's Right to Education, Orders State to Bear Rape Survivor's School Expenses
“If permission is granted to examine the Facebook or Instagram account of the prosecutrix as also to play the audio record concerning the prosecutrix, then privacy of the victim may be compromised.”
The judge further emphasized that the right to privacy is constitutionally protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. He referred to the Supreme Court’s landmark verdict in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which declared the right to privacy as intrinsic to the right to life and liberty.
“Privacy is a right enjoyed by every human being by virtue of their existence. It can extend to bodily integrity, personal autonomy, protection from surveillance, dignity, and confidentiality,” the judge noted.
Read Also:- J&K High Court Grants Interim Bail to 74-Year-Old Father-In-Law in Rape Case Filed by Daughter-in-Law
In his reasoning, Justice Verma also cited international legal frameworks like Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which recognize the right to privacy as a fundamental human right.
The defense argued that the digital evidence was critical to ensure a fair trial and even offered to provide a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act to establish its authenticity. However, the Court noted that the electronic records, including the audio recording, were not part of the official charge-sheet and had not been submitted during the investigation, casting doubt over their credibility.
Read Also:- Allahabad High Court Denies Relief to Suspended SHO in Hathras Gang Rape Case, Flags Dereliction of Duty
The Court also clarified that examining the truth or reliability of such evidence falls outside its scope under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
“The adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence does not fall within the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS,” the Court ruled.
Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Prahlad Rathour v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case No: CRMP No. 314 of 2025
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate
Counsel for the State: Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer
