Madras High Court Cautions Young Women Against Sharing Intimate Photos Online, Issues Appeal In English, Hindi And Tamil

Considering the public importance involved in the issue, the bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan issued the advisory in English, Hindi and Tamil languages and also expressed regret in not being able to translate the portion in all regional languages. The court added that once the intimate materials are shared online, there was a possibility that the same could be misused, leading to irreversible consequences.

“In these circumstances, this Court considers it appropriate to make a humble but earnest appeal to all young girls and women. No matter how deep the affection, trust, or promise of confidentiality may appear, intimate photographs or videos should never be shared with anyone through electronic means. Once such material leaves one's exclusive control, it can easily be misused, leading to irreversible consequences for the victim's privacy, dignity, and mental well-being. Prevention is always better than the arduous process of seeking legal redress after such trust has been betrayed,” the court said.

The court added that in the present digital era, there were individuals who exploited the emotional vulnerability of young women through false promises and induced them to share their photos and videos. The court remarked that after obtaining the photos and videos, these offenders would blackmail the women and subject them to continued humiliation.

“Regrettably, in the present digital era, some unscrupulous individuals exploit the trust and emotional vulnerability of young girls and women. By deceit, false promises, or emotional manipulation, they induce victims to share their intimate photographs or videos. Having obtained such material, these offenders betray the confidence reposed in them and resort to blackmail by threatening to publish the intimate images on social media or other digital platforms, thereby subjecting the victims to continued exploitation, humiliation, psychological trauma,” the court said.

The court thus urged every young woman to exercise utmost caution in safeguarding their privacy and dignity in the digital age.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by Suji @ Kasi against the order of the Fastrack Mahila Court, Nagercoil by which he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment until natural death. As per the prosecution, Kasi was initially arrested in connection with another crime. During the course of the investigation, his laptop was recovered, which contained obscene photographs and videos of several women, including the complainant in the present case. following this, the case was transferred to the CB-CID.

Meanwhile, the complainant in the present case lodged the complaint with the CB-CID and a separate case was registered. After trial, the court found him guilty for offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 417, 354(A), 294(b), 354(c) of the IPC and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act.

During the appeal, the appellant argued that the evidence of the victim was not credible and was unreliable. It was argued that the materials would reveal that the victim was consenting party to the physical and sexual relationship with the appellant. The appellant also argued that the complaint was lodged nearly one year after the alleged occurrence and no satisfactory explanation had been provided for the same.

The Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, argued that the appellant had approached the victim through social media under the guise of friendship and thereafter induced her to believe that he intended to marry her and that he would secure employment for her. The state also submitted that after gaining her confidence, the appellant developed a relationship with the victim, clandestinely captured her intimate photographs and videos and threatened to circulate them on social media, thus compelling her to subject to repeated sexual intercourse against her will. The state thus argued that any consent was obtained through criminal intimidation and under a misconception of fact.

The court noted that the present case was one involving “romantic fraud” in which the appellant cultivated the victim's trust, established emotional relationship with ulterior motive of exploiting the victim sexually, financially or otherwise. The court noted that the evidence of the victim demonstrated the romantic fraud committed by the appellant.

The court also rejected the arguments raised by the appellant with respect to some irregularity of dates in one of the reports by the investigating officer. The court noted that such irregularity would not vitiate the trial unless it had caused failure of justice or caused prejudice to the accused.

With respect to the argument of consent, the court agreed with the prosecution and observed that the consent was obtained through criminal intimidation, with a fear that the intimate images or photographs would be shared online. Thus, the court conclude that the submission of the victim, could not be said to be a free or voluntary consent. The court thus concluded that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

On the question of sentence, the court noted that it could not permit such offenders to exploit women by luring them with false promise of love and caeer opportunities. The court noted that the appellant had revealed a high degree of premeditation, cruelty and moral depravity and there was no reasons to interfere with the order of the trial court.

“Courts cannot permit such offender to exploit women seeking employment by luring them with false promises of love and career opportunities, only to subject them to repeated sexual abuse and blackmail through non-consensual recordings. The conduct of the accused reveals a high degree of premeditation, cruelty, and moral depravity. In these circumstances, no mitigating factor is found warranting any reduction of the sentence imposed upon the accused,” the court said.

The court thus dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. V. Kathirvelu Senior Counsel

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. G. Karuppasamy Pandian Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side)

Case Title: Suji @ Kasi v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 316

Case No: Crl.A(MD).No.644 of 2023