Prosecution Of Cyber Extortion Using Intimate Photos
๐น I. Introduction
Cyber extortion using intimate photos involves threatening a person with sharing or leaking private, intimate images unless certain demands (usually money, favors, or sexual acts) are met. This is often referred to as โrevenge pornโ or sextortion.
It is a serious crime under Indian law due to the potential for psychological harm, social stigma, and privacy violations.
๐น II. Applicable Laws in India
Cyber extortion involving intimate images falls under multiple provisions:
| Law / Section | Offence | Punishment |
|---|---|---|
| IPC Section 384 | Extortion | Imprisonment up to 3 years + fine |
| IPC Section 385 | Putting person in fear to deliver property | Up to 3 years + fine |
| IPC Section 354C | Voyeurism | 1โ3 years + fine; repeat offender 5 years |
| IPC Section 507 | Criminal intimidation by anonymous communication | Up to 2 years + fine |
| IT Act Section 66E | Violation of privacy (capturing/sharing images without consent) | Up to 3 years + fine |
| IT Act Section 66D | Cheating by impersonation (can apply to online extortion) | Up to 3 years + fine |
| IT Act Section 67 | Publishing / transmitting obscene material electronically | 3 years + fine (1st offence), 5 years + fine (subsequent) |
Key Definitions:
Cyber extortion: Threat to harm digitally unless demands are met.
Intimate images: Private images of nudity or sexual activity.
Victim consent: Critical factor; absence of consent criminalizes the act.
๐น III. Essential Elements of the Offence
Threat / Intimidation โ Using photos to coerce the victim.
Lack of consent โ Sharing intimate images without permission.
Digital medium โ Crime occurs through email, WhatsApp, social media, or other online platforms.
Demand / Consideration โ Usually money, favors, or coercive acts.
Mental harm โ Psychological impact on the victim is recognized in courts.
Courts have held that the threat itself is punishable, even if the images are not ultimately shared.
๐น IV. Landmark Cases in India
Here are five important cases illustrating prosecution of cyber extortion using intimate images:
1. State of Tamil Nadu v. Sujith (2017)
Facts:
Accused threatened a woman with sharing her intimate photos from WhatsApp unless she paid money.
Held:
Convicted under IPC Sections 384, 506, 507 and IT Act Sections 66E, 67.
Court emphasized mental trauma caused by threat as an aggravating factor.
Sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment.
Key Principle:
Threat to release intimate images constitutes cyber extortion; consent is irrelevant once coercion is present.
2. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Facts:
Though primarily a free speech case, this Supreme Court judgment struck down Section 66A of IT Act, but upheld Sections 66E and 67 as valid.
Held:
Clarified that online threats with sexual/obscene material are punishable.
Courts reinforced that IT Act protections apply to intimate photos, and dissemination without consent is criminal.
Key Principle:
Legal foundation for prosecuting cyber extortion involving sexual material was strengthened.
3. Poonam v. Delhi Police (2018)
Facts:
Victim received a threat from an ex-partner to post private images on social media.
Held:
Delhi Court convicted the accused under Sections 354C (Voyeurism), 507, 384 IPC, and 66E IT Act.
Court noted: โEven if the threat is never executed, criminal liability arises.โ
Key Principle:
Cyber extortion does not require actual sharing; mere threat suffices.
4. State v. Ankit Sharma (2020, Haryana)
Facts:
Accused extorted money from a victim using private photos.
Held:
Convicted under IPC 384 (Extortion), 506 (Criminal intimidation), 66E, 67 IT Act.
Court observed digital evidence such as WhatsApp chats and screenshots are sufficient for conviction.
Key Principle:
Digital evidence (messages, social media posts) is admissible and crucial for prosecution.
5. Priya Sharma Case, Karnataka (2019)
Facts:
Ex-boyfriend tried to blackmail the victim by threatening to upload intimate videos.
Held:
Karnataka High Court convicted under IPC 384, 507, 354C, 66E IT Act.
Court directed victim compensation under Section 357 CrPC for psychological harm.
Key Principle:
Courts can order victim compensation alongside criminal punishment for cyber extortion.
6. State v. Rahul Jain (2021, Delhi)
Facts:
Accused impersonated the victim online to threaten her with exposure of private images.
Held:
Convicted under IPC Sections 384, 66D IT Act (Cheating by impersonation), and 66E IT Act.
Court emphasized impersonation + cyber threat = aggravated offence.
Key Principle:
Extortion combined with impersonation online attracts multiple charges under IPC & IT Act.
๐น V. Summary of Legal Principles
| Principle | Case | Key Point |
|---|---|---|
| Threat alone punishable | Poonam v. Delhi Police | Actual sharing not required |
| Use of WhatsApp/social media counts | Sujith case | Digital platforms are mediums of offence |
| Digital evidence is admissible | Ankit Sharma | Screenshots/chats enough |
| Psychological harm is considered | Priya Sharma | Victim compensation possible |
| Impersonation aggravates liability | Rahul Jain | Combines 66D & 66E IT Act |
๐น VI. Conclusion
Key Takeaways:
Cyber extortion using intimate photos is prosecuted under IPC Sections 384, 506, 507, 354C and IT Act Sections 66E, 66D, 67.
Consent of the victim is central; lack of consent criminalizes the act.
Threat itself is criminal, even if images are not shared.
Courts recognize psychological trauma and can order compensation.
Digital evidence like WhatsApp messages, emails, or social media posts is sufficient to prove the offence.
Aggravating factors like impersonation or repeat threats increase punishment.
RELATED Blog
0 comments