Court affirms conviction under IPC Sections 376(2)(n), 417, 354(A), 294(b), 354(c) and IT Act Section 66E for sexual exploitation via romance fraud; emphasizes victim’s credible testimony and admissibility of original electronic evidence without separate certificate.
In a significant judgment dated July 14, 2026, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal of Suji @ Kasi, affirming his conviction and life sentence for offences including rape by deception, sexual exploitation, criminal intimidation, and obscenity under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The case arose from a disturbing modus operandi where the accused exploited vulnerable women through social media by falsely promising marriage and employment, thereby inducing them into sexual relationships. The accused clandestinely recorded intimate videos and photographs of the victims without their consent and used these materials to threaten and coerce repeated sexual intercourse.
The Court meticulously examined the victim's testimony, which was found to be cogent, consistent, and trustworthy despite minor delays in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and omissions in initial complaints. The delay was convincingly attributed to the victim's fear of intimidation and social stigma, common in cases involving sexual offences. The Court reiterated that delay in reporting such crimes is not fatal when explained satisfactorily.
A critical aspect of the judgment was the admissibility and evidentiary value of electronic evidence. The incriminating videos and images were retrieved from an Apple MacBook laptop seized from the accused’s father, with forensic analysis confirming the integrity and originality of the data. The Court held that when the original electronic device is produced in court, a separate certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is not mandatory, relying on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020).
The defense’s contention of a consensual relationship was firmly rejected. The Court distinguished between genuine consensual relationships and those induced by deception or false promises. It held that consent obtained under misconception of fact, coercion, or intimidation is no consent in the eyes of law, invoking Section 90 IPC and Explanation 2 to Section 375 IPC. The Court highlighted the psychological and social context of such offences, emphasizing that mere submission or acquiescence does not amount to legal consent.
Moreover, the accused failed to provide any plausible explanation for the incriminating electronic materials recovered from his possession, thereby attracting the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court also rejected allegations of coercion by the investigating agency and dismissed claims of morphing or fabrication of electronic evidence.
In sentencing, the Court underscored the heinous nature of rape, especially aggravated forms involving deception and blackmail. The life imprisonment until natural death was deemed appropriate given the calculated and repeated exploitation by the accused, along with the absence of mitigating circumstances.
The judgment also addressed the mental health challenges faced by judicial officers and investigators exposed repeatedly to graphic digital evidence. It called for institutional measures such as psychological screening, counselling, rotation of personnel, and safeguards to mitigate vicarious trauma among legal professionals.
This ruling not only reinforces the legal recognition of “romance fraud” and cyber-enabled sexual crimes but also clarifies the standards for electronic evidence admissibility and consent in sexual offence cases in the digital era. It sends a strong message against the exploitation of women through technology and promises to shape judicial approaches towards similar crimes.
Bottom line:-
Conviction under Sections 376(2)(n), 417, 354(A), 294(b), 354(c) IPC and Section 66E IT Act upheld for rape by deception, romantic fraud and sexual exploitation through electronic evidence and victim’s credible testimony – Delay in FIR and omission in FIR not fatal – Electronic evidence admissible without separate 65B certificate when original device produced – Plea of consensual relationship rejected due to deception and coercion – Life imprisonment until natural death affirmed.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 376(2)(n), 417, 294(b), 354(A), 354(c), 506(II), 90, 106, 114A IPC; Sections 66E, 65B Indian Evidence Act; Sections 207, 313, 164, 293, 294 CrPC
Suji @ Kasi v. State, (Madras)(Madurai Bench)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2940786
