Criminalization Of Cybercrime Including Hacking, Identity Theft, And Online Harassment
1. State of Tamil Nadu v. Sujith (2016) Madras HC – Phishing & Identity Theft
Facts:
The accused created a fake banking website to collect login credentials from users, resulting in unauthorized transactions. Victims lost substantial sums.
Legal Issues:
Applicability of Sections 66C (identity theft) and 66D (cheating by impersonation) of IT Act.
Whether phishing qualifies as a cognizable cybercrime.
Judgment:
The Madras High Court convicted the accused, holding that cloning websites and deceiving users for financial gain constitutes cybercrime. Digital evidence such as IP logs and website snapshots was admissible.
Significance:
Established phishing as a criminal offense under the IT Act.
Reinforced the importance of digital forensics in cybercrime prosecution.
2. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 – Online Expression & Harassment Context
Facts:
This case challenged Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized sending offensive messages online. Though not a cybercrime prosecution per se, it influenced how online harassment is viewed legally.
Legal Issues:
Whether vague provisions of IT law can criminalize online expression.
Balancing freedom of speech with criminal liability for online acts.
Judgment:
Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional for being vague and overbroad.
Significance:
Highlighted that criminalization of online harassment must be precisely defined.
Set a precedent for prosecuting cyber harassment under clear, targeted sections (like 66A repealed, 66E for privacy violations, etc.).
3. State v. Nikhil Jain (2018) Delhi HC – Email Phishing & Online Fraud
Facts:
The accused sent fraudulent emails impersonating bank officials to obtain user credentials, leading to unauthorized fund transfers.
Legal Issues:
Applicability of Sections 420 (cheating IPC), 66C and 66D of IT Act.
Admissibility of email headers and transaction logs as evidence.
Judgment:
Delhi High Court upheld conviction, stating that digital evidence proves intent to defraud, and phishing constitutes identity theft.
Significance:
Reinforced phishing and online impersonation as prosecutable cybercrime.
Showed courts rely heavily on digital trails for conviction.
4. State of Maharashtra v. Rohit Sharma (2022) Bombay HC – Cybercrime via SMS & Online Portals
Facts:
Accused ran a large-scale phishing campaign using SMS and cloned banking websites to trick users into revealing login credentials.
Legal Issues:
Whether phishing via SMS constitutes cheating and identity theft under IT Act.
Liability under Sections 66C, 66D, 66F (cyber terrorism) IT Act.
Judgment:
Bombay HC convicted the accused, ruling that any form of digital phishing is criminal, and the scale of attack justifies stringent sentencing.
Significance:
Clarified that cybercrime applies to emails, SMS, apps, and online portals.
Reinforced severity for organized phishing networks.
5. State of Karnataka v. M. Prakash (2013) Karnataka HC – Hacking & Online Theft
Facts:
A hacker accessed multiple online accounts and misappropriated funds from stored payment methods.
Legal Issues:
Applicability of Sections 66 (hacking), 66C, 66D, 43(a) IT Act, and 420 IPC.
Whether unauthorized access constitutes theft.
Judgment:
Karnataka HC convicted the accused, noting that unauthorized access combined with financial misappropriation constitutes cyber theft.
Significance:
Combines hacking and phishing as punishable offenses under IT Act.
Emphasized digital forensics and server logs for proving hacking.
6. State of Kerala v. Anil (2020) Kerala HC – Online Impersonation & Harassment
Facts:
Accused impersonated HR officials of a company through emails to steal salary account details, resulting in financial loss.
Legal Issues:
Liability under Sections 66C, 66D IT Act, and 420 IPC.
Whether online impersonation constitutes phishing and harassment.
Judgment:
Kerala High Court convicted the accused, holding that digital impersonation to acquire sensitive financial information is a cybercrime, punishable under identity theft and cheating provisions.
Significance:
Confirms liability for cyber harassment when combined with financial or personal data theft.
Highlights use of email and IP forensic analysis in court.
7. State of Maharashtra v. Cyber Criminals (Anonymous, 2019) Bombay HC – Cyber Harassment & Cyberstalking
Facts:
The accused used social media to harass women, impersonating them online and threatening them to extract personal information.
Legal Issues:
Applicability of Sections 66E (privacy violation), 66A repealed but Section 507 IPC, 354D IPC (cyberstalking), 66D IT Act.
Liability for digital harassment and blackmail.
Judgment:
Bombay HC convicted the accused, holding that cyber harassment, impersonation, and threats online constitute criminal offenses, emphasizing protection of victims’ digital privacy.
Significance:
Expanded criminalization to cyberstalking and online harassment, not only financial theft.
Demonstrates judiciary’s reliance on social media logs, chat records, and device forensics.
Key Principles from These Cases
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Phishing & Identity Theft | Sections 66C and 66D IT Act criminalize digital impersonation for personal gain. |
| Hacking | Unauthorized access to computer systems is criminal under Section 66 IT Act. |
| Online Harassment & Cyberstalking | Sections 354D IPC, 66E IT Act, and related provisions protect privacy and prevent harassment. |
| Digital Evidence is Key | Emails, IP logs, transaction records, chat history, and website snapshots are admissible. |
| Intent Matters | Criminal liability arises when there is intent to defraud, steal, or harass. |
| Integration with IPC | Cybercrime prosecutions often involve Sections 420, 507, and 406 IPC alongside IT Act provisions. |
| Scope Extends to Multiple Platforms | Offenses can occur via email, SMS, websites, mobile apps, or social media. |
These cases show that India has criminalized hacking, phishing, identity theft, and online harassment under IT Act and IPC provisions, and courts increasingly rely on digital forensics to convict offenders.
RELATED Blog
comments