STATE OF TAMILNADU VS. SUHAS KATTI

STATE OF TAMILNADU VS. SUHAS KATTI

Case Commentary:

State Of Tamil Nadu vs. Suhas Katti

 Case name:

 State Of Tamil Nadu vs. Suhas Katti – Cyber law case in India

 Decided on: 

5th November, 2004 

Court:

Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.

 Citation:

 CC.No. 4680 of 2004

 Time of Case:

2004

 Petitioner:

 State of Tamil Nadu

 Respondent:

 Suhas Katti

 Bench: 

Anulrj (CCM), Egmore.

Justice Markandey Katju, Justice Gyam Sudha Mishra

 Applicable Law:

• Indian Penal Code 1860
• Information Technology Act, 2000

 Important sections:

• Sections 469, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code 1860,
• Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

 Keywords:

 Suhas Katti, cyber crime, victim

 Introduction:

 This composition is about the case stated “State Of Tamil Nadu vs. Suhas Katti Case”. The first case of cybercrime was executed under the Information Technology Act 2000 and these cases held in 2004 stage as the center of the magnet. This case encouraged numerous people to come forward and report cybercrime. The case is significant because it marks the first case of online substantiation submission by section 65B of the Evidence Act. The Information Technology Act and its perpetration, in this case, had a notable impact and served both the courts and the general public since it set a standard for the courts and encouraged and strengthened people to report cyber importunity and online vilification. The case is significant because it marks the first case of online substantiation submission by section 65B of the Evidence Act. The Information Technology Act, 2002 and its perpetration in this case had a notable impact and served both the courts and the general public since it set a standard for the courts and encouraged and strengthened people to report cyber importunity and online vilification. The Additional Chief Metropolitan single judge Justice D. Arulraj on 5th November 2004 delivered its judgement for the case of State Of Tamil Nadu vs. Suhas Katti, the Chennai Cyber Cell was also appreciated for its phenomenal effectiveness since this case was answered within a short period of 7 months after the form of the FIR.

Background of the Case:

• The case was filed by a woman named Ms. Roselind with her friend and the accused shared her pictures and phone number on social media and sexual groups for refusing his marriage proposal to her. In these, the accused is held liable for an offense committed by the accused.  

 Facts of the Case:

• The accused was the family friend of Ms. Roselind, the victim. The accused wanted to marry Ms. Roselind i.e. the victim but the victim refused and married another person named Mr. Prajapati. Later, in 2003 Ms. Roselind got a divorce from Mr. Prajapathi.
• After the divorce from Mr. Prajapathi the accused again tried to communicate with the victim and asked her to marry him but Ms. Roselind refused to marry, the accused.
• But the accused, in no way stopped and continued communicating with her to marry him and late-night calls. Being rankled and aggressive due to the rejection, he started draining and stalking her by posting her number on social media uploading stag dispatches defaming her and outraging her modesty. The stag communication was posted on 5 sex groups with the username ‘Roosean’ and was transferred through forged unknown people asking for sexual favors.
• She informed her parents about the same and therefore made another email ID through which she transferred the groups and also the accused a warning, this didn’t stop and therefore filed a complaint with the Cyber Crime Cell, Central Crime Bench, Egmore, Chennai.
• After all the investigation, on the 5th of November, 2004, the accused was set up shamefaced under Section 469 and Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code and also Section 67 of the Information Information Technology Act.

 Charges framed against accused: 

• Section 469 of Indian Penal Code, 1860- Forgery to harm reputation
• Section 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860- Words gesture, act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
• Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 – Publication or Submission in electronic mode that’s against the will and is to cause defamation.

 Issues in the case:

• The accused created a bogus account in the name of Ms. Roselind to damage the victim’s character by transmitting similar obnoxious statements on Yahoo groups.
• The victim filed a complaint in February 2004 under sections 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Sections 469, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After entering the report, the police detained the suspect, who was the Mumbai-grounded friend of the victim.
• Whether the defendant was responsible for the charges under Sections 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Sections 469, 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The contention by both parties:

• According to, sections 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 469, 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the accused was set up guilty in this case. The separated woman who was the victim and the accused were friends and classmates in this case. The accused was a Mumbai resident.
• Everything began when the victim checked her Rediff dispatch and saw two pornographic dispatches transferred by the indicted on February 7 and February 9, 2004. 
• All of the victim’s information was handed, and the indicted subsequently distributed to five coitus groups via the Yahoo website. Upon seeing this, serval people made calls and text dispatches in an attempt to reach the victim. She’s seen as a coitus worker by the existent.
• In the time 2001, the woman tied the knot to Mr. Prajapathi of Uttar Pradesh. As a result of a marriage failure, a court-ordered divorce was achieved in 2003. During her time in college, one of her classmates wanted to marry the victim.
• Indeed after the divorce, the accused lingered at the victim’s home for ten days while claiming that he would travel to Bangalore for an interview. He makes her a second marriage offer, but the victim and her family turn down the offer. The victim ultimately came irked or didn’t find it nice that he kept telephoning and transferring dispatches, so she banned the appellant from far and wide. Because of similar wrathfulness, the indicted committed the crime. 

Sushas Katti:

• The accused further claimed that Mr. Prajapathi, the victim’s husband, is responsible for all this. The Court, however, rejects his assumptions that everyone else accused of the act must have committed it on their own. He added that he was only a  reaction to a victim’s rejection of him.

Judgment:

On November 5, 2004, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate issued the following • The accused is set up shamed of the offense committed by him, and for which he must be set up shamefaced and condemned to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years, a forfeiture ofRs. 500/- under, section 469 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the offense under, section 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 the accused is condemned for 1 year and under section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000, the lawbreaker faces a harsh 2- year jail judgment and a forfeiture ofRs. 4000/-. The indicted must pay the figure and serve their time in the central jail in Chennai.

 Case laws :

• Sharat Babu Digumarti vs. Government of NCT of Delhi

 The court mentioned in this case that the Information Technology Act is a special law and it covers all types of transmissions that were produced in online and electronic mode. It’s a well- known fact that the special law always prevails over the general laws. Accordingly, the court observed that “When the Act in varied provisions deals with profanity in electronic mode; it covers the offense under section 292 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.” 

• R. Arun and Ors.Vs. Inspector of Police, Thiruppur North Police Station and Ors.

This particular case complaint made by a woman against the accused who was made    scandalous statements against her on the internet by this woman and entered phone calls from nonnatives which made outraging of the modest woman. These accused were held liable under section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and sections 469 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.

•  Linga Bhaskar and Ors.Vs. The State and Ors. 
• P.SreekumarVs. State of Kerala and Ors

 Conclusion:

 It’s the first complaint filed by cybercrime in India. This case paved the way for all woman to feel confident in themselves, if any issues arise through the internet by participating their photographs and any information by someone differently deliberately or intentionally to them also they can make a complaint to the cyber security platoon to break their issue. As we see in the present case in a short period a case is closed and the indicted is penalized. All women and girls should be apprehensive of cyber crimes, not partake any particular information with unknown persons and maintain strong watchwords to social media accounts.

Author: Nagasreelekha Yelliboina, a Student of Sri Padmavati Mahila Visvavidyalayam, Tirupati