Ajay Bharadwaj v State
Rule established
Sending offensive messages through electronic communication constitutes an offence under S.66A IT Act (struck down) and S.354D IPC; cyber-stalking is a cognizable offence.
Facts
- Accused sent persistent unwanted messages despite being blocked multiple times
- Created fake profiles to circumvent blocking
- Uploaded morphed intimate images of the complainant on social media
- FIR filed; IP address and device forensics traced to the accused
- Charges framed under S.354D IPC, S.509 IPC, S.66E and S.67 IT Act
Issues
- Whether persistent digital communication constitutes stalking under S.354D
- Admissibility of digital evidence under S.65B Evidence Act
Held
- S.354D covers "contacts or attempts to contact" including digital means
- Fake profiles to circumvent blocks = monitoring internet use (S.354D(1)(ii))
- Morphed images violate S.66E (privacy) and S.67 (obscene material) IT Act
- Digital evidence admissible with S.65B certificate
- Charges framed; trial ordered
Ratio Decidendi
S.354D was intended to cover all forms of stalking including cyber. Each circumvention of a block is a separate instance. IT Act and IPC operate concurrently for technology-enabled offences.
How to use it in an exam
- Cite in IT Law and Criminal Law questions on cyber stalking
- Pair with Ritu Kohli (2001) for pre-amendment and this for post-2013 framework
- Relevant for S.65B digital evidence discussions
Source
Source: 2018 SCC OnLine Delhi 8502
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.
Cited in study notes
it-lawCyber Crimes - Meaning Classification and TypesSending offensive messages through electronic communication constitutes an offen