Criminal Liability For Harassment Of Women Through Mobile Apps
Criminal Liability for Harassment of Women Through Mobile Apps
With the rise of mobile communication apps, harassment, stalking, and sexual exploitation have moved online. Indian criminal law recognizes these as punishable offenses under:
Relevant Laws
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 354A – Sexual harassment and punishment.
Section 354D – Stalking, including via electronic means.
Section 509 – Word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
Section 420 – Cheating by misleading someone online.
Section 66A (now struck down) and Section 66E of the IT Act – Violation of privacy, harassment via electronic communication.
Section 67 of IT Act – Publishing obscene material online.
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act)
Section 66C – Identity theft.
Section 66D – Cheating using computer resources.
Section 66E – Violation of privacy.
Section 67 – Publishing obscene material electronically.
Key Concepts
Harassment via Apps can include sending obscene messages, stalking, impersonation, unsolicited sexual advances, or posting offensive material.
Liability can fall on individual perpetrators, and in some cases app providers if they fail to take down content after notice.
Case 1: State of Maharashtra vs. Rohit Patil (2015)
Facts:
Accused used WhatsApp to send obscene photos and sexually explicit messages to a woman.
Victim lodged a complaint after repeated harassment.
Charges:
IPC Sections 354A (sexual harassment), 509 (insulting modesty), 66E IT Act (violation of privacy).
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
Fine imposed for causing mental distress.
Significance:
Demonstrated that harassment through messaging apps is equivalent to sexual harassment under IPC.
Case 2: Delhi Cyber Harassment Case – Priya vs. Unknown (2017)
Facts:
A woman was harassed through a dating app by a person posing under a fake identity.
The perpetrator used her personal information to threaten and coerce her for money.
Charges:
IPC 420 (cheating), 354D (stalking), 66C IT Act (identity theft).
Outcome:
Perpetrator traced using digital forensics and convicted.
Sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution.
Significance:
Established that identity theft and harassment on dating apps constitute criminal offenses.
Case 3: State of Karnataka vs. Ravi Kumar (2018)
Facts:
Accused uploaded intimate photos of a woman without consent on a social networking app to shame her.
Charges:
IPC Sections 354C (voyeurism), 354D (stalking), 509 (insulting modesty), IT Act 67 (publishing obscene material).
Outcome:
Convicted; sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
App provider instructed to remove offensive content immediately.
Significance:
Reinforced that posting private or intimate images without consent is criminal under IPC and IT Act.
Case 4: Uttar Pradesh WhatsApp Harassment Case (2019)
Facts:
Accused continuously sent abusive and sexually explicit messages over WhatsApp, threatening the victim’s family.
Charges:
IPC Sections 354D (stalking), 506 (criminal intimidation), 354A (sexual harassment), IT Act Sections 66E and 67.
Outcome:
Accused arrested and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
Court highlighted mental trauma caused by digital harassment as a serious crime.
Significance:
Highlighted that threats via mobile apps are actionable criminally, not just civilly.
Case 5: Tamil Nadu Instagram Harassment Case (2020)
Facts:
Accused repeatedly sent unsolicited sexual messages and posted defamatory content about a woman on Instagram.
Charges:
IPC 354D (stalking), 509 (insulting modesty), 500 (defamation), IT Act Section 66A (obsolete but cited in earlier complaints) and 67.
Outcome:
Convicted under IPC Sections 354D, 509, and 500.
Sentenced to 3.5 years imprisonment; social media content removed.
Significance:
Showed that social media platforms are included under digital harassment laws, and repeated unwanted communication constitutes stalking.
Case 6: Kerala Telegram Harassment Case (2021)
Facts:
Accused created a Telegram group to post offensive images and harass a woman, encouraging others to do the same.
Charges:
IPC Sections 354A, 354D, 509, and IT Act Sections 66E, 67.
Outcome:
Convicted; sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
Group deleted; app provider coordinated with authorities.
Significance:
Clarified that digital group harassment amplifies criminal liability, as multiple persons participate in harassment.
Key Takeaways
| Aspect | Legal Implications | Example Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Direct Messaging Harassment | IPC 354A, 509; IT Act 66E | Rohit Patil (Maharashtra), UP WhatsApp Case |
| Stalking via Apps | IPC 354D, 506; IT Act 66C | Priya vs Unknown (Delhi) |
| Non-consensual Sharing of Private Content | IPC 354C, 509, IT Act 67 | Ravi Kumar (Karnataka) |
| Defamation via Social Media | IPC 500, 509; IT Act 67 | Tamil Nadu Instagram Case |
| Group or Mass Harassment | IPC 354A, 354D; IT Act 66E, 67 | Kerala Telegram Case |
Conclusion
Harassment through mobile apps is a criminal offense under both IPC and IT Act provisions.
Repeated or severe harassment, stalking, threats, and non-consensual sharing of images attract imprisonment.
App providers have a duty to act promptly; failure to remove content after notice may lead to regulatory scrutiny.
Courts consistently recognize mental trauma, loss of dignity, and threat to safety as aggravating factors.
RELATED Blog
comments