Mandeep Kumar, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Following a bench trial, Mandeep Kumar appeals his convictions of one Level 5 and one Level 6 felony for possession of child pornography. The only issue he raises is whether there was sufficient evidence to support his convictions. Finding that there was, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On January 16, 2024, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children notified the Tippecanoe County Prosecutor's Office that a local user of the instant messaging application WhatsApp had uploaded two videos containing child sexual abuse material (“CSAM”) to the application. Subsequently, the prosecutor's office issued subpoenas to the user's internet service and mobile network provider. After receiving and reviewing the videos and subpoena responses, the prosecutor's office identified the user as Mandeep Kumar.

[3] On August 28, the police applied for, obtained, and executed a search warrant for Kumar and his apartment. When the police searched Kumar, he was carrying an iPhone 13, the same type of cellphone used to upload the CSAM to WhatsApp on January 14, 2024. The police seized Kumar's cellphone and extracted the data. In the extracted data, the police located a WhatsApp conversation between Kumar and one of his roommates. The conversation contained seven videos depicting CSAM, which Kumar's roommate had sent him between July 16 and August 28. The data from the videos revealed that Kumar had accessed each one.

[4] The videos on Kumar's cellphone showed children between the ages of six and sixteen engaging in various sexual activities, including oral sex, vaginal sex, and anal sex. In addition to the videos, the police found a photograph depicting the vagina of a prepubescent girl “well under the age of 18” stored in a file folder on Kumar's cellphone. Tr. v. 2 at 54. The police could not find any indication that Kumar had attempted to delete the CSAM, had blocked his roommate on WhatsApp, or had asked his roommate to stop sending him CSAM. Nor did the police find any indication that Kumar had attempted to report the CSAM to the police. Instead, the CSAM remained accessible on Kumar's phone through his WhatsApp account, which was locked by facial recognition.

[5] On September 5, 2024, the State charged Kumar with Level 5 felony possession of child pornography and Level 6 felony possession of child pornography. On April 1, 2025, Kumar waived his right to a jury trial. At the bench trial, Kumar asserted in his closing argument that he opened the unsolicited and unlabeled CSAM, “[s]aw it was something he wasn't interested [in],” closed it, ignored it, and never viewed it again. Id. at 74. The trial court rejected Kumar's hypothesis of innocence, concluding that it was inconsistent with the evidence, and found him guilty of both possession of child pornography charges. Kumar was sentenced to three years in the Department of Correction on September 12, 2025. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Kumar challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his two convictions for possession of child pornography, as Level 5 and Level 6 felonies. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence needed to support a criminal conviction,

we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. [W]e only consider the evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from such evidence. A conviction will be affirmed if there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the job of the fact-finder to determine whether the evidence in a particular case sufficiently proves each element of an offense, and we consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the [fact-finder's] ruling.

Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1066-67 (Ind. 2015) (citation modified). Moreover, “i]t is ․ not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007) (citation modified).

[7] To convict Kumar of possession of child pornography as a Level 6 felony, under Indiana Code Section 35-42-4-4(d)(2) (2024) the State was required to prove that: (1) Kumar (2) with intent to view the image (3) knowingly or intentionally (4) possessed or accessed (5) an image that depicts or describes sexual conduct (6) by a child less than eighteen years of age, or by a person who appears to be a child less than eighteen if the representation of the image is obscene. To convict Kumar of Possession of Child Pornography as a Level 5 felony, the State was required to show elements 1 through 5, above, and that the child was less than twelve years of age. I.C. § 35-42-4-4(e)(2)(F). “A person engages in conduct ‘knowingly’ if, when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so.” I.C. § 35-41-2-2(b). “A person engages in conduct ‘intentionally’ if, when he engages in the conduct, it is his conscious objective to do so.” I.C. § 35-41-2-2(a). “Knowledge and intent are both mental states and, absent an admission by the defendant, the [fact-finder] must resort to the reasonable inferences from both the direct and circumstantial evidence to determine whether the defendant has the requisite knowledge or intent to commit the offense in question.” Konkle v. State, 253 N.E.3d 1068, 1091 (Ind. 2025) (citation modified).

[8] Here, there is clear evidence that Kumar possessed child pornography on his cell phone. Kumar does not dispute this; instead, he asserts that he lacked the mens rea for the crime. Kumar contends that he “opened the videos once, saw they were something in which he had no interest, closed them, and went back to exchanging adult pornography with the roommate.” Appellant's Br. at 9. Kumar maintains that evidence, alone, is insufficient to prove he knowingly or intentionally possessed child pornography.

[9] However, that was not the only evidence presented; rather, the State presented evidence that Kumar received seven videos containing child pornography from his roommate. Kumar opened and accessed all seven videos. In addition, there was a photograph depicting the vagina of a prepubescent girl “well under the age of 18” stored in a file folder on Kumar's cellphone. Tr. v. 2 at 54. The child pornography remained accessible to Kumar behind a WhatsApp account that was locked with Kumar's facial recognition. Kumar did not delete the child pornography, alert the police, or ask the roommate to stop sending him child pornography. From that evidence, it was reasonable for the trial judge to infer that Kumar knowingly or intentionally possessed child pornography.

Conclusion

[10] The State provided sufficient evidence to support Kumar's convictions for possession of child pornography, as Level 5 and Level 6 felonies. Therefore, we affirm.

[11] Affirmed.

Bailey, Judge.

Brown, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.