Analysis: State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti

Introduction:

Any Evolution? Yes, in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Suhas Katti, it was noticed for the first time that; “Section 65B certified evidence” was produced in a Court of law which made this case a historic case. Because the evidence that was presented in the case was in electronic media i.e. The content was circulate through Yahoo Groups and this evidence was admitted in the court of law. Electronic Media evidence comes under the category of secondary evidence but from this case. It gain so much importance, that it can also be called as primary evidence. In this case, this electric mode was the crucial evidence that evidenced the commission of the crime; on which the accused was convicted under Section 67 of ITA 2000 apart from Sections 469 and 509 of IPC.

Following this, in the case of P.V.Anvar Vs P.K.Basheer[1] , the Supreme Court held that to admit the electronic documents as evidence they must be accompanied by Section 65B certificate thereby overruling the Afsan Guru case, which earlier said that certain electronic documents can be left without the Section 65B certificate. Apart from this, the case, State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Suhas Katti was also recognized as the first case of conviction in India under ITA 2000.

Facts

In the case, the accused was a family friend of the complainant. The accused posted obscene, annoying, and defamatory messages about the victim. Who was a divorcee woman on messenger apps and social media platforms. The accused used the Yahoo messenger app to post rumors about the victim. The main problem was that the accused was interested in the victim. Also wanted to marry her but, she married another man. After her divorce, he again started forcing her for the marriage but she refused again. On being rejected, the accused started posting defamatory sentences about the victim and also posted her contact number.

After this, mails were also forwarded to the woman for information by the accused. Through a false e-mail account opened by the accused himself in the name of the victim. Due to this, the victim received many obscene and disrespectful calls in the belief that she was soliciting. After suffering defamation due to all such acts of the accused, the woman filed a complaint against the accused. Based on this complaint, the accused was traced in Mumbai and was arrested by the police a few days later. On March 24, 2004, a Charge Sheet was filed under section 67 of IT Act 2000, 469, and of IPC.

Issue

Was the accused liable for the charges under section 469 and 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000?

Holding

The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Egmore, Tamil Nadu passed the order holding the accused liable; for the charges levied on him. The punishment was a fine amount of Rs 500 and a sentence of 2 years of rigorous imprisonment; under section 469 IPC then, an amount of Rs 500 and a sentence of 1 year of simple imprisonment; under section 509 IPC and then an amount of Rs 4000 and a sentence of 2 years of rigorous imprisonment under section 67 of IT Act 2000.

Rationale

The accused was found guilty because:

Under Section 469 IPC- The provision states that any person who performs the forgery of any document or electronic record to cause harm to the other person, the person must be held liable for a term under this section. In the case of Suhas Katti, the accused posted the contact number of the victim on social media platform (The Yahoo Groups) along with defamatory and obscene sentences to character assassinate the victim so that he can take his revenge. This all was a revengeful act as she rejected him and refused to marry him.

Under Section 509 IPC- The accused explicitly mentioned many such things about the woman on Internet (The Yahoo Messenger App) due to which she started getting obscene calls and her character was questioned as it showed that she was soliciting. This act was willingly done by the accused to outrage the woman’s modesty socially and made her a false person in the rightful people’s eyes.

Under Section 67, IT Act- This Section provides the punishment for the person who transmits obscene content in electronic form and the accused did it through Yahoo Messenger App and that’s why he was held liable.

Dissent on Accused’s Behalf

The Defence Counsel argued that those obscene mails would have been provided either by the ex-husband of the woman because of the divorce or by the woman herself so that she can implicate the accused as accused alleged to have turned down the request of the complainant to marry her.

The Defence also said that some of the documentary evidence that was presented was not sustainable under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act.

But even after these arguments, the said act concluded that the crime was committed and so the accused was held guilty.

Conclusion

In the 21^st generation era, every sphere of one’s life revolves around cyberspace, which gives birth to both sides, i.e. the advantages that the internet provides and also the crimes which occur. Now it seems that it has become an important task to manage these internet crimes. The internet had only started to emerge recently within the Indian context and the laws for it were hardly stringent since not much harm was caused or reported till then. However, the IT act and its implementation, in this case, made a historic impact and helped both the courts and the public as it sets a benchmark for the courts and inspired people and gave them strength to lodge cases against the wrongs of harassment and defamation, etc. on the internet. This case became the first case where conviction happened under section 67 of the Information Technology Act 2000 in India.

[1] Anvar PV v PK Basheer, [2014] 10 SCC 473 .