Disclaimer
The information contained in this document is meant for informational purpose only and is based on material available in public domain. No claim is made towards accuracy or authenticity. The name of the victim is shortened to protect identity.
Extracts from the Judgement Pronounced in the First Cyber Crime Conviction in India, passed by the Ld Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai - 8
Facts of the Case
Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cyber Crime Cell, C.C.B.Egmore, Chennai.8 has filed Final Report against the accused, that on 7.2.04, evening at Cyber Café Hello World Centre, Sion, Mumbai having an I.P.61.11.10.99, the accused with intention of harming the reputation of the Complainant Ms. R, created user id in the name of her and composed an obscene message intending that such document shall be used for posting in different obscene Yahoo Group, with the intention to make others to believe that the document was made by her, so that the persons seeing the obscene message would send offending calls to her,in harming her reputation and by insulting her modesty by the words exhibited in the email and in the course of same transaction, on 7.2.04, evening at Cyber Café Hello World Centre, Sion, Mumbai, having an IP 61.11.10.99 the Accused posted obscene message which are lascivious and also have the effect to corrupt persons who are likely to read and see such obscene messages and caused to the published in different obscene Yahoo goups and in the course of same transaction, that on 9.2.04, morning, at Cyber Café Heighten Advertising, Mahim, Mumbai, having an IP 202.88.165.53 the accused with intention of harming the reputation of the complainant Ms. R entered user id. which was created by him in the name of the complainant and composed an obscene message intending that such document shall be used for posting in different obscene Yahoo groups, with the intention to make others to believe that the document was made by her, so that the persons seeing the obscene message would send offending calls to her, in harming her reputation and by insulting her modesty by the words exhibited in the email and that in the course of same transaction, that on 9.2.04, morning at cyber café Heighten Advertising , Mahim, Mumbai, having an IP 202.88.165.53, the accused posted obscene messages which are lascivious and also have the effect to corrupt person who are likely to read and see such obscene messages and caused to be published in different obscene Yahoo goups and thereby the accused have committed offences u/s 469 IPC, 67 I.T Act. 469 &509 IPC, and 67 of I.T. Act.
P.W. 1 is the only daughter of P.W.2 and P.W.3.P.W.2 is the father, P.W.3 is the mother. Presently, P.W.1 is working as a senior Executive (H.R.) in a multinational Company at Chennai. She studied her MBA Course in Mumbai in the year 1997, the accused studied with P.W.1 and she was his classmate is Mumbai. Accused belongs to Mumbai. On 9.2.04, She opened her Rediff e-mail and noticed the receipt of two obscene messages which were posted on 7.2.04 and 9.2.04. She took computer output of the obscene message posted on 7.2.04, Ex P.1 is the obscene message. The obscene message carried her Office phone numbers and her e-mail I.D. The house Phone number was wrongly given. The said obscene messages have been sent through Yahoo website to 5 sex groups. The computer printout obscene message posted in @ Radha lovers group is EX.P.2. On seeing the said messages, several persons sent the responsive message and many persons tried to contact her over phone. Ex P3 series is the responsive messages. Several Phone calls came to her office. P.W.1 informed the said matter to her parents. The messages were likely to harm the reputation and morale of P.W.1.
P.W. 1 had married Jaichand Prajapathi of Uttar Pradesh in the year 2001. The family life was not happy and she obtained divorce through court in the year 2003. The Accused was citied as witness in the divorce petition. P.W.1 recollected one incident and suspected in the involvement of the Accused. During college days in the year 1997, the accused used to travel with P.W.1 in train at Mumbai. On one such occasion, Accused pointed out an obscene scribbling with phone number in the train and told P.W.1 that on seeing the phone number, many persons would try to contact the phone number and this is the best way to spoil the reputation of a woman. The Accused even expressed his desire to marry P.W.1, after the engagement of P.W.1 with Jaichand Prajapati was over. P.W.1 turned down his proposal. In the year 2003, the Accused stayed in the house of the P.W.1 for about 10 days stating that he has to attend an interview at Banglalore. At that time also, Accused offered to marry P.W.1 for which P.W.1 and her parents refused the alliance. Thereafter, P.W.1 after his return to Mumbai was in the habit of making Phone calls, sending S.M.S. Messages and sending E-mail to P.W.1 frequently. Hence P.W.1 blocked the e-mail I.D. of the Accused. Ex.P5 is the Computer output for blocking the e-mail I.D. of the Accused.
On seeing the obscene message, P.W.1 discussed the matter with P.W.2 and P.W.3 and sought the help of the Accused over phone. P.W.1 and her parents issued a warning message in the name of PW 2 and PW 3 by creating an email ID viz , parant2003@yahoo.co.in and transmitted same to the yahoo groups. She sent warning messages to the persons, who sent responsive message in ExP.6 series. A copy of warning message was also sent to the Accused.
P.W.1 lodged a complaint on 14/2/2004 along with Ex.P1 at Cyber Crime Police. The complaint is Ex. P.4 P.W.12 who received the complaint directed P.W.4 to obtain header details and other particulars to find out the origination of the messages. P.W.4 went to Cyber Café at Kennath Lane, Egmore along with P.W. 1 she down loaded the message took print out by using the e-mail I.D. Parant2003@Yahoo.Co.in Ex.P.9-Ex.P.12. She extracted and stored the messages in Mo.2 floppies. Thereafter P.W.12 gave a requisition to the Hathway Cable and Data Com. Pvt. Ltd; under Ex.P.13, for which it gave a reply in Ex. P.14. P.W.12 also gave a requisition to Dishnet D.S.L. in Ex.P.13 and the reply given by Dishnet D.S.L is Ex.P.15. P.W.5 speaks about Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.14. P.W.6 speaks about Ex.P.15.P.W.12 also examined P.W.11 and obtained particulars in Ex. P.29 series and confirmed that the messages were originated from Mumbai. P.W.12- Investigation Officer registered F.I.R. Ex.P.34 on 20.2.04.
Thereafter, P.W.12 proceeded to Mumbai on 24.2.04, and arrested the Accused at Mumbai on 25.2.04. He seized Mo.1 Cell Phone from the Accused under Mahazar Ex.P.8 P.W.8 and P.W.9 who are running browsing Centre at Mumbai, identified the Accused in the presence of P.W.12. He seized Ex.P.23, 24 registers from them. P.W.8 speaks about the Accused and the seizure of Ex.P.22 and the remarks made by P.W.12 in Ex.P.23, P.W. 9 speaks about the Accused that he came to the browsing centre and signed in the Register Ex.P24 as R. Ex.P.25 is the word written by the Accused.
P. W. 12, brought the Accused to Chennai on 28.2.04, after producing the Accused before a Mumbai Court. The Accused gave a confession statement in the presence of P.W. 10 and he gave the password “an rose”. The said word is Ex.P.27.
The particulars stored in the SIM Card were taken print out in Ex.P. 28 series through S.M.S. Reader. P.W.12 went to the office of P.W.7 and took computer print out by using the password “an rose”. He issued the certificate in Ex.P.21. The computer print outs are Ex. P 16-P.20. P.W.12 completed investigation and laid charge sheet against the Accused of offences u/s 67 of I T Act and u/s 469,509 of IPC.
Final Order
…this court is not inclined to accept the theory projected by the Accused that the obscene messages would have been created by P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 or by Jaichand Prajapathi. It is clear that the Accused himself has composed and posted the obscene messages from the browsing centre of P.W.8 and P.W.9. This Court holds that the prosecution has proved its charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the Accused is liable to be punished.
The Accused was heard regarding the question of sentence u/s 248 (2) Cr.P.C. The Accused pleaded for admonition. The Accused is not a lay man. He is educated and studied upto M.B.A. P.W.1 is holding a responsible post in a multinational Company at Chennai. The Accused has chosen to post the obscene message for the simple reason that she refused to marry him. He did not behave like an educated man. Only a family woman can realise the mental sufferings and pain if unknown persons contacted her through phone and e-mail and invited her to bed. The mental sufferings and humiliation undergone by the P.W.1 cannot be compensated in terms of money or by solacial words. It cannot be stated that the Accused had acted in a heat of passion. Two days repeatedly he had sent the obscene message—Computer system and browsing centre are meant for learning things and updating knowledge in various fields. The Accused has misused the same to take revenge on a sophisticated lady. Therefore, the Accused does not deserve leniency and is liable to be punished.
In the result, the Accused is found guilty of offences u/s 469,509 IPC, and u/s 67 of I.T. Act. and the Accused is convicted and is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years u/s 469 IPC, and to pay a fine Rs.500/- i/d, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month and for the offence u/s 509 IPC, sentenced to undergo 1 year simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- i/d to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month and for the offence u/s 67 of Information Technology Act 2000 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- i/d to undergo S.I. for 6 months. All sentences to run concurrently. The period undergone by the Accused will be set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C.
Chennai Cyber Crime Cell gets its first case in record time.
 |
The Case of The State of Tamil Nadu Vs Suhas Katti is notable for the fact that the conviction was achieved successfully within a relatively quick time of 7 months from the filing of the FIR. Considering that similar cases have been pending in other states for a much longer time, the efficient handling of the case which happened to be the first case of the Chennai Cyber Crime Cell going to trial deserves a special mention. |
Mr S.Balu, the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Photograph Enclosed) in charge of the Chennai's Cyber Crime Cell at the Commissioner's office acknowledged that the assistance provided by Naavi and the Cyber Evidence Archival Center ( www.ceac4india.com ) was helpful in the speedy resolution of the case.
The case was also notable since it silenced several critics about the inability of the Police in general to be capable of Cyber Crime investigation and more so production of satisfactory evidence to prove the case in a court of law.
This case will therefore be considered as a land mark case in the history of Cyber Crime Management in India.
The case related to posting of obscene, defamatory and annoying message about a divorcee woman in the yahoo message group. E-Mails were also forwarded to the victim for information by the accused through a false e-mail account opened by him in the name of the victim. The posting of the message resulted in annoying phone calls to the lady in the belief that she was soliciting.
Based on a complaint made by the victim in February 2004, the Police traced the accused to Mumbai and arrested him within the next few days. The accused was a known family friend of the victim and was reportedly interested in marrying her. She however married another person. This marriage later ended in divorce and the accused started contacting her once again. On her reluctance to marry him, the accused took up the harassment through the Internet.
On 24-3-2004 Charge Sheet was filed u/s 67 of IT Act 2000, 469 and 509 IPC before The Hon'ble Addl. CMM Egmore by citing 18 witnesses and 34 documents and material objects. The same was taken on file in C.C.NO.4680/2004. On the prosecution side 12 witnesses were examined and entire documents were marked.
The Defence argued that the offending mails would have been given either by ex-husband of the complainant or the complainant her self to implicate the accused as accused alleged to have turned down the request of the complainant to marry her.
Further the Defence counsel argued that some of the documentary evidence was not sustainable under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the court based on the expert witness of Naavi and other evidence produced including the witness of the Cyber Cafe owners came to the conclusion that the crime was conclusively proved.
The court has also held that because of the meticulous investigation carried on by the IO, the origination of the obscene message was traced out and the real culprit has been brought before the court of law. In this case Sri S. Kothandaraman, Special Public Prosecutor appointed by the Government conducted the case.
Honourable Sri.Arulraj, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, delivered the judgement on 5-11-04 as follows:
“ The accused is found guilty of offences under section 469, 509 IPC and 67 of IT Act 2000 and the accused is convicted and is sentenced for the offence to undergo RI for 2 years under 469 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/-and for the offence u/s 509 IPC sentenced to undergo 1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and for the offence u/s 67 of IT Act 2000 to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.4000/- All sentences to run concurrently.”
The accused paid fine amount and he was lodged at Central Prison, Chennai. This is considered the first case convicted under section 67 of Information Technology Act 2000 in India.
Naavi
November 5, 2004 |
