CYBER CRIME AGAINST WOMEN BY DEBARATI HALDER
While the whole nation celebrated the independence day today amidst various
positive ways I found an extremely encouraging information which I intended to
share with my blog readers, especially women. The Hon’ble Principle Sessions
Judge of Chennai has finally denied bail
petition for an offender who dared to create a fake profile in the Facebook.
No, it was not a case of typical victimisation of women through creation of
fake profiles; but it is the other way
round: this youth acted as an actor in the Facebook. He impersonated the actor
by taking up his screen name “Shantnu Khan” with a slight modification by
adding an ‘a’ after‘t’ in the name. When the unreal Shant(a)nu Khan contacted
the fans and acquaintances through the fake profile, little did any one notice
about the spelling mistake. When he
finally won the confidence of his targets he posed as an actor in distress who
needed monetary help to redefine his life; something typical that we get to see
in Nigerian phishing cases through emails. By his appealing presence in the
Facebook, he could finally gain a little fortune.(See http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-tamilnadu/youth-denied-bail-in-fake-facebook-account-case/article5024422.ece).
He was arrested by the central crime branch of the police in Chennai who mainly
applied S.420 of the Indian penal code which prescribes punishment for cheating
and S.66 of the Information technology Act, which prescribes punishment for computer
related offences which are referred in S.43 of the information technology Act. The
words that are highlighted by both these provisions of the information
technology Act while emphasising upon offences are ‘fraudulently’ and ‘dishonestly’.
This made up actor duped some for unethical gain through these two ways and he
was rightly booked under these provisions. Now note that while S.66 of the
Information technology Act is a bailable offence, S.420 of the Indian penal
code is a non-bailable and cognizable offence. Interestingly many times crimes
booked under both these provisions may be similar in nature, but due to the
drafting the laws, the traditional law prescribes stricter punishment than the
new law meant for cyber crimes. But this is not a new type of case. If the readers (especially from the
Chennai region) can remember the Chennai Romeo case ( See http://newindianexpress.com/cities/chennai/article543074.ece) , the
similarities in the pattern of trapping the victims can be found. But in this
case, the youth is intelligent enough to do a better homework. The Hon’ble
judge has taken right decision in denying the bail. He actually created a good
example to show how crime reporting by victims can influence the reporting
agency, i.e, the police; and how proper application of the best provisions of
laws can finally help the judge to decide the fate of the case.
I
have seen that many cases of victimisation of women through creation of fake
profiles die premature deaths with the victim unwilling to report. Nonetheless,
few cases targeting the reputation of women take a turn such as this one where
S.420 of the IPC can be applied straightaway. But at the same time, it would neither
be correct to say that provisions meant to safeguard online reputation
including that of women are worthless laws. Needless to say, women victims can
make a huge change in sentencing in such cases if they clearly narrate the
whole victimisation and the police cooperate accordingly. Belief in criminal justice system as well as
awareness of the police and the victim are key elements to prevent crimes and
this is no exception in cases of cyber victimisation of women. Let this 15th
August reinstate the courage in women.
Happy Independence Day!
Please Note:
Do not violate copyright of this blog. If you would like to use informations
provided in this blog for your own assignment/writeup/project/blog/article,
please cite it as “Halder D. (2013), “An Impressive Independence Day news”, 15th August,2013,
published in http://debaraticyberspace.blogspot.com/
