ISSUE 1

WHETHER MR.VICKY CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE

CYBER BULLYING AND HARASSMENT ENDURED BY
ALIZA?

According to Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 354A - Any man who engages
in unwelcome and explicit sexual behavior, demands sexual favors, shows
pornography against a woman's will, or makes sexually colored remarks can be
punished with imprisonment or fine.

• {she received direct messages containing certain vile and explicit images
of herself . The content was not only derogatory but also a malevolent
assault on her dignity, leaving her emotionally scarred.}

According to Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 354C - Any man who
watches, captures images of a woman's private act, or disseminates such images
without her consent, can be imprisoned for one to three years on first conviction and
three to seven years on subsequent convictions, along with a fine. "Private act"
includes acts in a place with reasonable privacy and involving exposure of genitals,
posterior, or breasts, or acts not done ordinarily in public.

[the police determined that the pictures are created through AI-
Technology.]

According to Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 354D (ii) Monitors the use by a
woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits
the offence of stalking.

According to Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 509 Whoever, intending to

insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or
exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such
gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such
woman.
[Vicky got into a disagreement leading to altercation. This may have
happened because Vicky had also applied to same institution but did not
get the offer]
Section 66C in The Information Technology Act, 2000
Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly make use of the electronic signature,
password or any other unique identification feature of any other person, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine with may extend to
rupees one lakh.
Section 66E. Punishment for violation of privacy.
Whoever, intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the
image of a private area of any person without his or her consent, under
circumstances violating the privacy of that person, shall be punished with
imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine not exceeding
two lakh rupees, or with both.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section--
(a) transmit means to electronically send a visual image with the intent that
it be viewed by a person or persons;
(b) capture, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film
or record by any means;
(c) private area means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, *[pubic
area], buttocks or female breast:
(d) publishes means reproduction in the printed or electronic form and
making it available for public;
(e) under circumstances violating privacy means circumstances in which a
person can have a reasonable expectation that--
(i) he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image
of his private area was being captured; or
(ii) any part of his or her private area would not be visible to the public,
regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.
IN the case of the State of West Bengal v. Animesh Boxi (2018),the
accused hacked the victim’s phone and took control of some of her private
pictures. He blackmailed her by threatening to post those pictures on a
pornography website. Here the court held that thevictim has sufferedfrom
virtual rape. Thus the accused will be convicted under Section 354 D of IPC
The Supreme Court has in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 held
that an offence relating to the modesty of a woman cannot be considered
trivial. And here in this case modestyof women was clearly destroyed. And it
is humbly submitted before supreme court of indona that the expert opinion
should not be reliable , expert evidence is only a piece of evidence and
weight to be given to it has to be judged along with other evidence of this
nature is ordinarily not conclusive. Such evidence therefore cannot be taken
as substantial piece of evidence unless corroborated by other evidence. The
opinion of expert are not binding upon judge. It always based on the
discretion of Hon’ble court.
ON THE QUESTION OF STATEMENT BY TECH EXPERT ;
In the landmark judgement of Supreme Court Mohamood vs. State of
U.P.,it would be highly unsafe to convict a person on the sole of testimony
of expert.

In the landmark judgement of Gopala Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

The Supreme Court held that an expert evidence is a weak type of evidence.
Court do not consider as conclusive and therefore it is not safe to rely upon it
without seeking independent and reliable corroboration
Kumar v. Whiteley
Facts
The accused, i.e Kumar gained unauthorised access to the Joint Academic
Network (JANET) and deleted, added files, and changed the passwords to
deny access to the authorised users which led to a loss of Rs 38,248 to the
users.
Verdict
The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Chennai sentenced N G
Arun Kumar, the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year
with a fine of Rs 5,000 under Section 420 IPC (cheating) and Section 66 of
the IT Act (Computer related Offense)
Kamalakanta Tripathy v. Respondent: State of Odisha and Ors.
Facts
In this case, the email id of Madhusudan Padhy, IAS, Transport
Commissioner, Odisha was hacked by an unknown miscreant. Through this
hacked email, the accused used to send incriminating emails to other people
and threaten them.

Verdict
The accused was held liable under Section 66 of the Information Technology
Act on the proof that the real accused was culpable as he was hiding behind
an alias by masking his own identity. Hence, the Supreme Court observed
that the culpability of hacking depends on the presence of mens rea or the
object with which the act was carried out for it to be punishable under
Section 66 of the IT Act and since considering that the email account of a
Senior IAS Officer of the State has been it has been hacked so as to illegally
obtain sensitive and confidential documents, the accused is liable for
punishment as prescribed under Information Technology Act, 2000.

Amitabh Bachchan
Amitabh Bachchan is one actor who is quite active on social media
platforms. He puts his opinion quite strongly and stays ahead in sharing the
nitty-gritty about his life and the people related to him. In 2019, this
megastar’s Twitter account was hacked by a Turkish hacker who replaced
Big B's picture with Pakistan’s PM Imran Khan. The hacker posts all
controversial tweets from his handle. However, the account was recovered
within 10 hours.

Deepika Padukone
In December 2020, suddenly all the posts on Deepika Padukone's (Twitter
and Instagram) social media accounts were wiped off. This led to many
speculations as to why the star removed all her posts from her Instagram and
Twitter accounts. Netizens took no time to understand that there were high
chances of her account being hacked. She has more than 68.6 million
followers on Instagram and 28 million on Twitter.

Karan Johar
Currently in news for all his saucy episodes of Koffee with Karan, the
director, producer, and actor Karan Johar also became a victim of this. When
his Twitter account was hacked, the hacker started sending his friends
random DMs. Karan warned his friends of the same. His account was then
restored.
Nora Fatehi
Nora Fatehi we all know for her dancing moves. The dancing queen’s
Instagram account was also unavailable for several hours. However, it was
restored and she informed her fans about the same by posting it on her
account.

Shahid Kapoor
The actor’s Twitter account was also hacked by a Turkish hacker as after it
was hacked, the hacker posted some comments in connection with Padmavat
in Turkish dialect. The incident happened right after Shahid and Meera
Kapoor welcomed their second child into the world.
ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE AGE OF MR.VICKY WARRANTS SPECIAL

CONSIDERATION FOR HIM,AND SHOULD HE BE
REGARDED AS A JUVENILE OR AN ADULT IN THESE
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS?
According to Juvenile Justice Act,2000 Section 15 In case of a heinous
offence alleged to have been committed by a child, who has completed or is above
the age of sixteen years, the Board shall conduct a preliminary assessment with
regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to
understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he
allegedly committed the offence, and may pass an order in accordance with the
provisions of sub-section (3) of section 18
It was contended in the case of Mukesh &Anr vs Union of India & Ors.
AIR 2017,also known as the Nirbhaya rape case, that the accused’s age
should not be used as a shield for the level of cruelty he perpetrated on the
victim. It was observed that he physically abused the woman with a metal
bar, causing her pain and lacerations on her body. In the last sentence, the
young man was released after serving his prison sentence by court

Parag Bhati (Juvenile) through legal guardian v. State of Uttar Pradesh

(2016) The Respondent in this case was arrested for murder and imprisoned
in a juvenile home. His father filed a juvenile regarding his age, claiming
that he was a child. This was also supported by various school certificates.
However, the Juvenile Justice Board, after scrutinizing the certificates,
hadsome doubts regarding his juvenility, and the accused was referred to the
 medical board for examination and determining his age. The medical board
opined that he was a major, and so his case was transferred to the court of
the Chief Judicial Magistrate
The Supreme Court, on the issue of determination of juvenility, held that the
principle of juvenile under the Act would be applicable only in cases where
the accused is prima faciea minor. The present case deals with a well-
planned serious offence that depicts the maturity ofthe accused, and he is not
innocent. The plea of juvenility in this case was held to be of a natureto
dodge the law in place.

The Supreme Court ruled in Ram Prasad Sahu V. State of Bihar AIR
1979, that a minor criminal can be convicted of both rapes and attempted
rape. If a youngster is not eligible for punishment but is capable of
committing rape or murder, granting him blanket immunity violatesthe
principles of fairness and proportionality of punishment

International convention USA: In the US, anyone 13 years old and above
can be tried as an adult if he or she has a record of previously breaking the
law or commits a serious crime. Children between the changes of 15-16 are
tried as adults for certain offenses, including murder, aggravated criminal
sexual assault, and armed robbery with a firearm. Hence, it is humbly
submitted before Hon’ble Supreme court of India that appellant should not
be regarded as a juvenile in legal proceedings. And the sanction confirmed
against accused shall be treated as a accused person and rectify Ravi as an
offender
ISSUE 3

WHETHER THE PENALTY IMPOSED ON MR.VICKY IS

JUSTIFIED AND LEGITIMATE?

Aliza is a girl of bright mind, and is in a tender age.She has suffered

social embarassment which further has caused her mental cruelty.Her
image has been tarnished, she is scarred for life.Vicky did all this
deliberately and further committed these shameful acts comprising
offences under IPC, IT ACT.After looking upon these facts and
circumstances the Subordinate and High Court decided in favour of Ms.
Aliza and convicted the accused under thesections of IPC and sections
66C and 66E of the IT Act, there by imposing a 10-year sentence on
Mr.Vicky.So the penalty imposed on Mr. Vicky is justified and
legitimate.

DAMAGE TO ALIZA BY ACCUSED

1. Psychological and Emotional Impact:As stated by ALIZA in her
statement to investigatorthat VICKY"S action caused her to lose of her self -
esteem to break which left prosecutrixto severe psychological and emotional
impact whose consequences for the victims,including depression, anxiety,
low self-esteem, and even suicidal thoughts. SinceAppellant is still an
teenager she particular, she is more vulnerable to its effects of cyberbulling.
2. Educational Impact:Cyberbullying disrupted ALIZA education, As it
causing her to missschool, experience a decline in academic performance,
and even leading to thoughts forchange in school or learning environment
.3. Social Isolation:ALIZA has been withdrawn from social activities and
relationships, leadingher to social isolation and further emotional distress
The evidence against Accused credible proves the conduct beyond
reasonabledoubt.The High Court has correctly interpreted and applied the
relevant provisions of IPC and IT Act that deal with cyberbullying and
harassment. Court has relied on sufficient and reliable evidence to convict
the Ravi as the Offender and to determinequantum of the sanction.Accused,
had an intention to derogate the reputation of Prosecutrix stopped talking
with Vicky since after that accused perpetrated entire scenario where he
stated his account was hacked, and his system was compromised in pushing
attack
What is an IP address.
As, it was accused system was tracked down while tracing the IP address of
system. Since,when tracking down IP address Procedure goes as
following:That, IP addresses are unique identifiers that allow different
machines and networks tocommunicate and exchange information.In the
past one year. Adolescents who experienced cyberbullying victimization
were 2.07 timesmore likely to have depressive symptoms compared to those
who did not experiencecyberbullying victimization
Violation of fundamental right to live with dignity:The right to live with
human dignity is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21
In the Indian Constitution. It means that every person has the inalienable
rightto live with dignified life without discrimination. They are entitled to
claim equal respectfrom the state as well as from other persons
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,the Supreme Court gave a new
dimension to Art. 21. The Court held that the right to live is not merely a
physical right, but includeswithin its ambit the right to live with human
dignity.
Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India : In this case, the Supreme Court of Indona
heldthat the right to dignity includes the right to be treated with respect and
the right to live a life free from discrimination and harassment.
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi: In
this case, the Supreme Court of India held that the right to life embodied in
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is not merely a physical right but
includes within its ambit theright to live with human dignity.

ISSUE 4
WHETHER VICKY’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF PRIVACY
HAS BEEN BREACHED IN THE INVESTIGATIONS AS HIS
SYSTEM WAS LOOKED INTO WITHOUT HIS PERMISSION
AND KNOWLEDGE? WHETHER THE INVESTIGATION
SHOULD BE SET ASIDE ON THE AFORESAID GROUND?

It is humbly submitted before Supreme Court of India that right to privacy

should not be use as a shield for accused because if even investigation
against accused come under right to privacy and also if examining data for
police investigation came under right to privacy than it will be too difficult
to proof a person guilty for certain case. So, that right to privacy does not
mean right to protection from investigation and a person should not be
protect from investigation. here in this case police investigate his
socialmedia account without his knowledge should not be consider as
violation of right to privacy because by this way police protect the
information from manipulate by accused
The right to privacy came into light in Kharak Singh v the State of
U.P(1963 )wherethe main issue was pertaining to surveillance of suspects.
This judgement of kharak signh case has been overruled by Supreme Court
itself in case of puttaswamy, and put some restriction on right to privacy
In the year 2017, the Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of Justice
K.S.Puttaswamy Vs Union of India, also known as the Aadhar case. It
was in this case that the Right to privacy was first recognized as a
fundamental right given under the constitution of Indona. The court held that
the right to privacy is an integral part of the right to life and Personal liberty
as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Due to this judgment,the
Supreme Court interpreted that Aadhar is not violative of right to privacy
and this judgment overruled the above other judgments where it was said
that right to privacy is nota fundamental right.Right to privacy has now be
granted the status of fundamental right but is not an absolute right overall
and is subject to certain restrictions or limitations that are:
1. National Security and Public Safety.
2. Public Interest.
3. Scientific or Historic Research.
4. Criminal Offences, etc.

In the case of Deepti Kapur v. Kunal Julka CM(M) 40/2019, Justice

Anup Jairam Bhambhani laid down,“Since no fundamental right under our
Constitution is absolute, in the event of conflict between two fundamental
rights, as in this case, a contest between the right to privacy and the right to
fair trial, both of which arise under the expansive Article 21, the right to
privacy may have to yield to the right to fair trial.” Although today, privacy
is recognized as a fundamental right, that alone would not make evidence
collected in breach of that right,in admissible.” The settled rule, purely from
the standpoint of the law of evidence, is that evidence is admissible so long
as it is relevant, regardless of how it is collected