Submitted by

V.JAYABHARATHI Doreen Hephzibah Miriam D,

M.sc Computer Science Director, Computational Intelligence
Shrimathi Devkunvar Nanalal Bhatt Research Foundation (CIRF),
Vaishnav College for Women Chennai
Chrompet - 44. director@cirf.co.in
jayavekatesan@gmail.com

ABSTRACT:
This document contains the case comment on
State of Tamil Nadu vs. Suhas Katti. The case
is popularly known as “The Suhas Katti Case”.
This case grabs limelight being the first case of
conviction of cybercrime under IT Act and was
decided in the year 2004. The case comment
comprises of the introduction, background,
analysis of the case under section 67 of the IT
Act, cyber stalking, online evidence and further
developments after the case. There are very
important points in the case which makes it
important in itself. The case further inspired INTRODUCTION:
many people to come forward and complain
The case of Suhas Katti v. Tamil Nadu was the
against cybercrime. The case is also important first in India to result in a conviction for posting
for the providing online evidence under section obscene comments on the internet under the
contentious section 67 of the Information
65B of the Evidence Act for the first time. The Technology Act, 2000. The case was launched
IT Act and its execution, for this case, had a in February 2004, and the Chennai Cyber
Crime Cell was able to get a conviction
noteworthy effect and aided both the courts
approximately seven months after the FIR was
and general society as it sets a benchmark for lodged. The woman reported to the police that
the courts and inspired individuals and a man was sending her filthy, slanderous, and
unpleasant communications through a Yahoo
strengthened them to file complaints against messaging group. In addition, the accused
the cyber harassment and defamation over the forwarded emails received in a fictitious
account he created in the victim’s name. The
internet. woman also received phone calls from others
who thought she was looking for sex work.
KEYWORDS:

Suhas Katti Case, First conviction under IT

Act, Benchmark, Cybercrime, Women
Modesty, Section 67 of IT Act.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:
The accused was a close friend of the victim’s
family. The accused desired to marry the
victim, but she declined and married someone
else. The marriage ended in divorce. When the
accused saw this, he saw an opportunity and
proposed marriage to her. The victim declined
once more. When the accused was turned
down, he posted obscene and defamatory
messages about the victim on Yahoo
messenger groups, causing him injury.
The woman filed the lawsuit after she was
harassed and received obscene messages on
numerous groups with the purpose of insulting
her. The messages were delivered by a man
who was really interested in marrying her but
after she refused him, that individual began
sending these kinds of messages.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The accused was the victim’s family friend.
The accused desired to marry the victim, but
the victim declined and married someone else.
The marriage had disintegrated. When the
accused saw this, he saw an opportunity and
proposed marriage to her. The victim declined
once more. When the accused was refused,
he posted filthy and defamatory messages
about the victim on Yahoo messenger groups,
injuring him. However, the marriage ended in
divorce, and the accused began contacting the
victim again, but she refused him again.
The women filed a complaint against the
accused after being subjected to such slander
as a result of the accused’s actions. The culprit
was detained by the police after a few days,
based on the women’s complaint. On March
24, 2004, a charge sheet was filed under
Section 67 of the IT Act 2000 and Section 469
of the IPC.
ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE
COURT:
“Whether the respondent was liable for
charges under section 67 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 and under sections 469
and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?”
ARUGUMENTS FROM THE
APPELANT SIDE:
 The learned counsel from the
appellant’s side argued about the
harassment and the obscene
comments and messages that she
received through the mail and false
accusation.
 He further argued that the
objectionable emails and messages,
according to the defending attorney
were sent by her ex-husband or
someone else.
 He said that the victim wanted to
marry the accused and that after being
refused, the victim tried to frame the
accused with false accusations.
 More over Under Section 67 of the
Indian Evidence Act, defense counsel
contended that part of the
documentary evidence was not
admissible.
ARGUMENTS FROM THE
RESPONDENT SIDE:
 The learned counsel from the
respondent’s side stated that the
damaging emails were sent by the
victim’s spouse or herself in order to
blame the accused.
 The deface maintained that the
infringing emails were sent by the
complainant’s ex-husband or the
complainant herself in order to
implicate the accused, who was
accused of turning down the
complainant’s request to marry her.
 Despite these arguments, the act ruled
that the offence had been committed,
and the accused was therefore found
guilty.
RELATED PROVISIONS INVOLVED:
 The related provisions involved in this
case are Section 67 of IT Act, 2000 &
Section 469 & 509 of IPC, 1860.
 Section 67 says that:[1]
Publishing obscene information in
electronic form. -Whoever publishes,
transmits, or causes to be published in
electronic form any material that is
lascivious or appeals to the prurient
interest, or if its effect is such that it tends
to deprave and corrupt persons who are
likely, given all relevant circumstances, to
read, see, or hear the matter contained or
embodied in it, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a
term not exceeding five years and a fine
not exceeding one lakh rupees on the first
conviction, and with imprisonment of
either description for a term not
exceeding ten years and a fine not
exceeding two lakh rupees on the second
or subsequent conviction.”
 Section 469 of IPC:[2]
“Forgery with the intent to harm a
party’s reputation.—Whoever commits
forgery with the intent to harm a
party’s reputation or knowing that it is
likely to be used for that purpose, shall
be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term that may
extend to three years, as well as a
fine.”
 Section 509 of IPC:[3]
“Whoever, with the intent to offend a
woman’s modesty, utters any word, makes
any sound or gesture, or exhibits any
object with the intent that such word,
sound, gesture, or object be heard or seen
by such woman, or intrudes upon her
privacy, shall be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term up to one year, a
fine, or both.”
JUDGEMENT:
Under section 469 and 509 of the Indian
Penal Court, i.e., Forgery for the Purpose
of Harming Reputation-Whoever commits
forgery with the intent that the document
or electronic record forged shall harm the
reputation of any party or knowing that it is
likely to be used for that purpose, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a period of up to three
years, and is also subject to a fine.
And any word, gesture, or behaviour
meant to offend a woman’s modesty is
punishable, stated by the Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate on November 5,
2004, also section 67 of the information
technology act, the accused is found guilty
of the offence committed by him, for which
he must be convicted and sentenced to 2
years of rigorous imprisonment, a fine of
Rs.500/- under section 469 of the Indian
penal code, and also for the offence
committed by him under section 509 of the
Indian penal code, the accused is
sentenced to 1 year of simple
imprisonment, with a fine of Rs.500/-
under section 469 of the Indian penal
code, And, under section 67 of the
Information Technology Act 2000.
The accused has been sentenced to two
years in prison and a fine of Rs. 4000/-.
The accused must pay the payment and
be imprisoned at Chennai Central Prison.
Despite all of these objections, the proofs
were presented to the Court. The
harasser’s IP address was the same as
the accused.
An eyewitness, the owner of the Cyber
Case, testified against the defendants.
The Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate ruled the accused guilty of
offences under Sections 469, 509 IPC,
and Section 67 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000, based on expert
witnesses and other evidence presented
in court.
In addition, the accused is found guilty and
sentenced for the offence. Under the
accusations of Section 509 of the IPC, he
must serve one year of S.I. and pay a fine
of Rs.500. He must also serve two years
of R.I. under Section 469 of the IPC. He
must serve two years of R.I. and pay a
fine of Rs.4000 for the offence under
Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000. All of the
sentences will run simultaneously.
Analysis and Impact of the case:
This case is a landmark case regarding cyber-
crime management and is popularly known as
"The Suhas Katti Case." This case gained
attention because it was the first conviction for
cybercrime under the IT Act. In this case, the
implementation of the IT act had a significant
effect and served both the courts and the
public by setting a strong precedent and
encouraging individuals to file complaints
against online harassment, defamation, and
other wrongs. The court relied on the legal
maxim of Generalis Specialibus Non-Derogant
for statutory interpretation,which states that
where there exists a special law it must prevail
over the general law. In the present case, the
IT Act is a special law governing the
communication and transmission of knowledge
through electronic mode, was read with the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 to hold the
respondent liable for his acts. The court
recognized expert validation in determining the
admission of electronic evidence under section
65B of the Indian Evidence Act4. People have
been made aware that their rights can still be
safeguarded in the virtual world, and that they
can have faith in the court system. The most
important aspect of the case is that, for the first
time, the court recognized forgery of electronic
evidence as a crime that is still relevant today.
This case was resolved in less than seven
months after it was filed, which is significant in
and of itself because the need of the hour is a
quick response to the problem. Because it was
humiliating for the ladies to speak publicly
about the abuse they were experiencing prior
to this case, this case pushed others to come
out and talk about the same concerns they
were experiencing.
Related Cases:
1. The Kerala High Court in the case
of Sreekumar V. v. State of Kerala held
that even if the word is abusive,
unparliamentarily it cannot be considered
as obscene unless it arouses the sexual
feeling of the person against whom the
message was made.
CONCLUSION:
This case was the first in the history of the
Indian judicial system to punish someone for
sending obscene texts to a woman, causing
her reputation and character to be harmed, as
well as outraging her modesty.
It is a concept that the judgement should be
based on a correct examination of the
witnesses and facts of a particular case, and in
the current context, it should be noted that the
honourable judges decided the case correctly,
which was filed under sections 67 of the
Information Technology Act, 2000, as well as
sections 509 and 469 of the Indian Penal
Code.
The accused was properly sentenced because
his actions were not only against the law but
also against morality; publishing obscene
content and speaking ill of women is a horrible
thing to do. It should be mentioned that in
Indian society, women are subjected to many
criticisms and have faced several sexual
remarks; therefore, the accused posted such
obscene stuff in cyberspace, which devastated
the petitioner and lowered her reputation.
The current case also prompted the
government to impose a partial ban on
pornography under Section 67 of the IT Act of
2000, which is now being litigated. This case
encouraged a number of women to come out
and talk about the similar issues they were
having, as it was previously embarrassing for
women to openly discuss the harassment they
were experiencing. People were made aware
that they have rights in the cyber realm as
well, and that they should have faith in the
legal system.
 Handling Cyber Harassment Cases Using Cyber Investigation Procedures

REFERENCES:

1. https://www.studocu.com/in/document/christ-deemed-to-be-
university/criminal-law-1/suhas-katti-v-union-of-india/27684347

2. https://lawfoyer.in/suhas-katti-v-state-of-tamilnadu/

3. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3776961