Use Of Technology In Sexual Offences
🔹 Introduction
With the proliferation of smartphones, internet access, and social media, technology has increasingly been misused to commit sexual offences. These include cyberstalking, revenge porn, sextortion, child pornography, deepfake videos, and sharing of non-consensual intimate images.
Such offences are dealt with under a combination of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, and POCSO Act (in cases involving minors).
🔹 Legal Provisions Involved
Section 354A–D IPC – Sexual harassment, stalking, voyeurism, and cyberstalking.
Section 292, 293 IPC – Obscenity and circulation of obscene material.
Section 66E, 67, 67A of IT Act – Violation of privacy, publication of sexually explicit content.
POCSO Act Sections 13, 14, 15 – Child sexual abuse using electronic media.
🔹 Notable Case Laws
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
Issue: Constitutionality of Section 66A of the IT Act.
Judgment:
The Court struck down Section 66A for being vague and violating freedom of speech.
However, it clarified that offensive sexual content, obscenity, and harassment online are punishable under other sections (like 67A, 354D).
Significance:
Set a clear boundary between freedom of speech and criminal misuse of online platforms for sexual abuse.
2. State v. Nitayanand Dubey (Delhi HC, 2018)
Facts: Accused made fake profiles and sent sexually explicit messages and morphed images.
Judgment:
Convicted under Section 67, 67A of IT Act and Section 354D IPC.
Significance:
Affirmed that morphed images or fake social media accounts used for sexual harassment constitute punishable offences.
3. Prajwala v. Union of India (2018)
Facts: PIL filed against circulation of rape videos on WhatsApp and social media.
Judgment:
Supreme Court directed platforms to implement automated tools to detect and remove such content.
Ordered government to take strict action against uploaders.
Significance:
Recognized that digital transmission of sexual violence content is a serious offence requiring proactive action.
4. In Re: Minor’s Online Abuse (Kerala HC, 2022)
Facts: Accused used social media to lure minor girls, took screenshots of video chats, and blackmailed them (sextortion).
Judgment:
Conviction under Section 66E, 67B of IT Act and POCSO provisions.
Significance:
Reinforced protection of minors from technology-enabled sexual abuse.
5. Suvarna v. State of Karnataka (2020)
Facts: Ex-boyfriend shared intimate photos online.
Judgment:
Convicted under Section 67A IT Act and Section 354C IPC (voyeurism).
Significance:
Upheld victim's right to digital privacy and dignity.
6. Deepfake Pornography (State v. Arjun, 2023)
Facts: Accused used AI tools to generate deepfake porn videos of known women.
Judgment:
Recognized under existing IT and IPC laws as a form of digital sexual abuse.
Significance:
Established that deepfake pornography amounts to criminal sexual offence.
🔹 Conclusion
Technology is a double-edged sword. Courts have consistently held that:
Consent and privacy remain key, even in digital interactions.
Digital sexual crimes are equally serious as physical ones.
Existing legal tools are flexible enough to cover tech-based sexual crimes, though more cyber-specific laws are needed.
✅ 2. Theft in Dwelling House
With more than five detailed case laws – no external links.
🔹 Definition
Theft in a dwelling house is a more serious form of theft because it violates not just property but the sanctity and safety of one's home. It is governed by:
Section 378 IPC: Theft (basic definition).
Section 380 IPC: Theft in a dwelling house, tent or vessel – punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years and fine.
🔹 Ingredients of the Offence
Under Section 380 IPC:
There must be dishonest intention.
Movable property must be taken.
From a dwelling house, tent or vessel.
Without the owner’s consent.
🔹 Key Case Laws
1. Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan (1963 AIR 1094)
Facts: Government employee removed confidential files from office to show to an outsider.
Judgment:
Even temporary removal with dishonest intent is theft.
Office space was treated as a protected place.
Significance:
Highlighted that theft includes temporary removal and doesn’t require intention to permanently deprive.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Tukaram Umale (1997)
Facts: Theft of jewellery from a house by a servant.
Judgment:
Held that theft in a dwelling house by a servant attracts Section 381 IPC (aggravated form of Section 380).
Significance:
Recognized higher duty of care expected from domestic staff.
3. R v. D.N. (Delhi HC, 2015)
Facts: A guest in a house stole mobile phones and valuables during a stay.
Judgment:
Convicted under Section 380 IPC, since the offence occurred inside the home.
Significance:
Reinforced that trust-based access does not legalize theft.
4. State v. Rahim Khan (Patna HC, 2007)
Facts: Accused entered home as electrician and stole jewellery.
Judgment:
Court held that stealing while legally inside is still theft under Section 380.
Significance:
Clarified that lawful entry does not protect from liability if theft is committed inside a home.
5. Rakesh v. State of U.P. (2012)
Facts: A person stole from the house of his own relative.
Judgment:
Theft from anyone’s dwelling house is punishable, even if there's a family connection.
Significance:
Reinforced that relationship or access does not excuse theft.
6. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1970)
Facts: Servant stole from employer’s bedroom.
Judgment:
Applied Section 381 IPC: theft by clerk or servant of employer.
Significance:
Added gravity when theft is committed by someone in a position of trust.
🔹 Punishment
Under Section 380 IPC: Imprisonment up to 7 years + fine.
Under Section 381 IPC: Theft by servant—imprisonment up to 7 years + fine (often treated more seriously).
🔹 Conclusion
Theft inside a dwelling house is viewed more seriously by courts due to violation of privacy and trust.
Courts consider:
The location of theft (inside the house),
Relationship with the complainant,
Nature of entry (lawful or unlawful).
Case law has clarified that even lawful entry does not absolve the accused if the intent to steal exists.
RELATED Blog
0 comments