Supreme Court Rulings On Sextortion Prosecutions
1. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004)
Background: Suhas Katti created fake email accounts to harass and defame a woman, including threats of sharing intimate content.
Supreme Court/High Court Observation: The Court emphasized that unauthorized access and threats to circulate private content fall under Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act and may amount to cyberstalking and sextortion.
Significance: This case became a benchmark for recognizing digital harassment and sextortion as serious cybercrimes, highlighting that impersonation and threats with private images are punishable.
2. Shafeeque v. State of Kerala (2017)
Background: The accused threatened a woman to send explicit images over social media and extorted money, amounting to sextortion.
Supreme Court Observation: The Court held that threats to circulate sexually explicit material with intent to coerce money or favors constitute both criminal intimidation under IPC Section 506 and cybercrime under IT Act Section 66E.
Significance: Reinforced that sextortion cases involve dual criminal liability—sexual harassment and cyber extortion—and digital evidence is admissible.
3. S. Shreya v. Union of India (2015) – Cyber Harassment Context
Background: Multiple complaints involved online harassment and threats to share intimate videos for coercion.
Supreme Court Observation: While striking down Section 66A, the Court clarified that harassment, coercion, and extortion using digital content fall under Sections 66E, 67A, 67B, and 354D IPC, and victims are entitled to protection.
Significance: Highlighted the scope of IT Act provisions to cover sextortion and established that courts must treat digital sexual coercion seriously.
4. State of Maharashtra v. XYZ (2018)
Background: The accused extorted money from women by threatening to upload intimate videos online.
High Court Observation: The Court ruled that sextortion falls under cybercrime jurisdiction, and bank records, social media chats, and device data are admissible evidence. The accused could be prosecuted under IPC Sections 384 (extortion), 506 (criminal intimidation), 354D (stalking), and IT Act Sections 66C, 66D, and 67B.
Significance: Clarified that digital evidence in sextortion cases is credible and sufficient for conviction, provided the chain of custody is maintained.
5. Supreme Court Guidelines on Digital Sexual Exploitation (2020)
Background: This involved a petition seeking guidelines for handling sextortion and cyber sexual harassment cases.
Supreme Court Observation: The Court instructed that police must act promptly on complaints of sextortion, secure digital evidence, and prevent the spread of intimate content. It emphasized that victims should not be victimized further during investigation.
Significance: Established procedural safeguards for investigation, evidence collection, and victim protection in sextortion cases.
Key Judicial Principles in Sextortion Cases
Digital evidence is crucial: Social media chats, emails, bank records, and device logs are admissible.
Dual liability: Sextortion can attract charges under IPC (stalking, harassment, extortion) and IT Act (unauthorized access, identity theft, circulation of obscene material).
Consent and privacy matter: Unauthorized access or coercion with private content is punishable.
Victim protection: Courts mandate procedural safeguards to prevent further victimization.
Prompt investigation: Police and courts are required to secure evidence quickly to prevent dissemination of intimate content.
RELATED Blog
0 comments