This case deals with the Section 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 67 and 67A of Information Technology Act, 2000. This case deals with the sending of obscene emails sent by the accused to the complainant.

Case Note on: 
The State (Cyber Cell) Complainant
Yogesh Pandurang Prabhu r/o. Vashi Accused
C.C. NO. 3700686/PS/2009

Introduction
This case deals with the Section 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 67 and 67A of Information Technology Act, 2000. This case deals with the sending of obscene emails sent by the accused to the complainant.

Here the accused was Yogesh Pandurang Prabhu and the complaint was filed by the Sonali Asoka Sawai who was working in the Debold Systems Private Limited.

In this case accused got convicted under the section 66E of Information Technology Act, 2000 and also for offence punishable under section 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Background
Sonali Asoka Sawai lodged a complaint in Cyber Cell, Mumbai. And she was working in the Debold Systems Private Limited, and this has provided her laptop and various other things. But before working in this company she has worked in Mahindra and Mahindra Company and her id was [email protected]. Afterwards she came in contact with accused and they both became friends and even they met face to face but later she didn’t like the nature of accused and she unfriend him.

On 03/03/2009 she opened her email account and found that she received mail from some unknown id [email protected] and she observed that there were some vulgar comments on her but she ignored. But on daily basis she always received those vulgar emails from same id and dates are 05/03/2009, 06/03/2009, and 08/03/2009. Those emails contain some nude photos, pornographic postures. So she filed complaint to cyber cell on 09/04/2009. During the enquiry process it was found that those emails were received from 15 IP addresses of Airtel and Reliance Company. So out of 15, 12 addresses were of Wam Bombay Bulk Handling Equipment Industry Private Limited. The she reported that the accused works in the same company also visits at Harayana for company work. So she complained that accused  has outraged her modesty.

On this formed report, crime number 110/2009 was registered in Shivaji Park P.S. for offence under section 509 of Indian Penal Code and 67 and 67A of Information Technology Act. So the question was raised related to outraging her modesty and transmitting of material containing sexually explicit contents through emails. In this case Mukund Gopal Pawar who was prosecution witness 8 and he was police officer who investigated this matter.

Analysis
In this case all offences which had been performed by the accused were solely dependent on the circumstantial evidence because crime took place on web not face to face. Many cases were cited just to provide the essential conditions to satisfy the condition. Accused has also made one fake id in the name of complainant has mention the phone number of her and he has uploaded obscene pictures and she daily got calls from random people like taxi driver etc. The laptop which was used to send vulgar mails to her was of an accused and his company has provided this laptop for office work. Not here he has committed a crime by infringe her right of privacy. Mukund Pawar has send mail to Gmail server and asked for details of id of complainant. And he also asked physical address of id through which vulgar mails has been sent from service providers. And he got 2 addresses; one was of Navi Mumbai and second was of Haryana. This thing he reported to the complainant and the she disclosed the name of Yogesh Prabhu who was working in that company. And then she filed the complaint.

The police reached to that office and called accused and there he has confessed. Police has seized the hard disk of his laptop. But manager of that company Anil (P.W 5) denied corroborating the seizure of hard disk of laptop. Kundan (P.W 4) also denied corroborating the fact that the hard disk was given by accused and then it was seized by police. And hence they did not support prosecution on technical aspect of seizure. Now officer has focused on another aspect which was related to password that that email id. According to him on 18/04/2009 accused gave disclosure statement and showed readiness to open the disputed email id by using password known to him. Now here it attracts Section 27 of Evidence Act as password comes into the category of fact which was only known to accused and police has found all those email which were sent to the complainant on specifics dates but defence raised the point that though id was logged in by him that doesn’t mean that the email were sent by him only. But opposite said that that id was not a general id which could be used by everyone rather it was a personal  id which was only known to him.

Now they took the opinion of expert Sonali Mistri which becomes relevant. She actually prepared the mirror copy of that hard disk which was same with hash copy. She also found deleted files and she recovered those file which contains obscene photos and found the traces of reporter’s email id and most important aspect in case is that finding of traces of Orkut profile in the name of Sonali Sawai. It is also to be noted that factors like creation of messages and sates of sending those were also matching.

Defence raised this issue that because of breakup she filed complaint against accused. And they have also cited the cases where hon’ble court has quashed the proceeding solely on the grounds of enmity. But opposite Party provides that complainant has not provided the name of accused in the initial stage where as she has disclosed the name of accused only when proper investigation has been done.

Conclusion
In my opinion all the evidences which were gathered attracts the section 66E more than the section 67 and 67A of I.T Act, 2000.

Hence offence under section 67 and 67­A is not proved but offence under section 66­E of Information Technology Act is established. And accused was correctly prosecuted under Section 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66E of Information Technology Act, 2000.