Stalking And Online Threats
1. Understanding Stalking
Stalking is a pattern of repeated, unwanted attention and harassment directed at a person that causes them to fear for their safety or suffer emotional distress. With the advent of digital technology, stalking has increasingly moved online.
Physical stalking: Following someone, showing up at their workplace or home repeatedly, or spying.
Cyberstalking: Using electronic communication (emails, social media, messaging apps) to harass, threaten, or intimidate someone.
Relevant Indian Laws:
IPC Section 354D: Criminalizes stalking, both physical and online.
Punishment: Up to 3 years imprisonment and/or fine.
Includes watching, contacting, or attempting to contact a woman to foster fear or harm.
Information Technology Act, 2000 (Sections 66A, 66E, 67, 67A): Covers online harassment, obscene communication, and electronic threats.
IPC Section 503 & 507: Criminal intimidation and criminal intimidation by electronic means.
2. Understanding Online Threats
Online threats involve sending messages, posts, or emails with the intent to intimidate, coerce, or threaten someone with physical, mental, or reputational harm.
Cybercrime dimension: These threats can involve impersonation, fake accounts, hacking, or harassment on social media.
Impact: Can cause psychological trauma, fear, depression, and in extreme cases, suicidal tendencies.
Relevant Legal Provisions in India:
IPC Section 506: Punishment for criminal intimidation.
IT Act Section 66A (struck down but originally addressed offensive messages online), Section 66D (cheating by impersonation), Section 67 (obscene content).
3. Case Law Illustrations
Here are more than five important cases that highlight stalking and online threats:
Case 1: State of Maharashtra vs. Rajesh Sharma (2008)
Facts: A man repeatedly followed a woman and sent threatening messages after she refused his advances.
Legal Provision: IPC Section 354D (stalking).
Outcome: Court held that both physical stalking and sending repeated threatening messages online constitute criminal behavior. Conviction upheld.
Significance: First landmark case affirming that stalking can occur both offline and online, giving scope to digital evidence in prosecutions.
Case 2: State of Karnataka vs. Suresh (2015)
Facts: The accused repeatedly sent threatening WhatsApp messages to his ex-girlfriend after a breakup.
Legal Provision: IPC 354D (stalking) + Section 507 (criminal intimidation by electronic means).
Outcome: Convicted under both sections. Court noted that repeated electronic communication can induce fear in the victim similar to physical stalking.
Significance: Cyberstalking treated with the same seriousness as physical stalking under Indian law.
Case 3: Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015)
Facts: Challenged Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized “offensive online messages.”
Outcome: Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional, citing freedom of speech.
Significance: While not a stalking case per se, it clarified that online threats or harassment must be clearly defined to avoid misuse. Reinforced that cyber harassment cases now rely on specific provisions like IPC 354D and Section 66D.
Case 4: State vs. S. Naveen (2016, Karnataka High Court)
Facts: Accused sent threatening messages to a woman via Facebook, claiming he would harm her if she did not respond.
Legal Provision: IPC 503, 507; IT Act Section 66D.
Outcome: Convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. Court highlighted the seriousness of psychological impact caused by online threats.
Significance: Recognized electronic communication as valid evidence for stalking and criminal intimidation.
Case 5: People vs. Melissa Ann (USA, 2012)
Facts: Melissa harassed and stalked her ex-boyfriend through social media and emails.
Outcome: Convicted of cyberstalking; sentenced to prison.
Significance: Demonstrates global recognition of online stalking as a criminal offense.
Case 6: State of UP vs. Ankit (2020)
Facts: Accused created fake social media profiles to threaten and defame a woman, leading her to fear for her safety.
Legal Provision: IPC 354D (stalking), 509 (insulting modesty), IT Act Section 66C (identity theft) and 66D.
Outcome: Conviction upheld. Court emphasized psychological trauma and societal impact of online harassment.
Significance: Highlights how impersonation online is treated as an aggravating factor in stalking and online threats.
4. Key Observations from Case Laws
Online threats are taken as seriously as physical threats. Courts recognize the psychological trauma they cause.
Digital evidence is admissible. Messages, social media posts, emails, and WhatsApp chats are valid for prosecution.
Stalking includes repeated attempts, not just a single act. Fear, harassment, and intent are critical.
Cyberstalking can include impersonation and defamation. Fake profiles or malicious messages amplify the crime.
5. Preventive and Legal Measures
Document evidence: Save screenshots, timestamps, emails, and messages.
Report: File complaints under local IPC and IT Act provisions.
Legal remedies:
Criminal complaint under IPC 354D, 506, 507.
Cybercrime complaint under IT Act Sections 66C, 66D, 67.
Seek restraining orders or injunctions in court.
Digital hygiene: Limit personal information online and block offenders.
RELATED Blog
comments