Chennai: A software engineer was jailed for sending offensive electronic mail on Tuesday, the same day the Supreme Court upheld citizen’s freedom of expression.
A court in Chennai awarded one year jail term to Srinath Nambudri of Karnataka for harassing a woman colleague after she spurned his advances. The cyber cell of the crime branch in December 2011 registered a case against Nambudri under various provisions of Information Technology Act.
The Metropolitan Magistrate L Abraham Lincoln also slapped him with a fine of 20,000 rupees.
The verdict came on the same day the apex court struck down Section 66A of the act saying the clause struck at the root of liberty and freedom of expression.
However, the court did not exempt anyone from punishment for sending abusive messages through a computer or communication device. A cyber culprit can still be sentenced under similar provisions of the IT Act, IPC and state-enacted provisions that criminalize harassment.
Numbudiri was convicted under section 67 of the act that deals with publishing obscene material in electronic form. He was also punished under section 509 for insulting a woman’s modesty through word or gestures and section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998.
According to police, Nambduri was attracted to a female colleague, and expressed his love to her. When she spurned his advances, he started sending several obscene and derogatory emails to her from April 2011, The Times of India reported.
On one occasion, when the woman went to the US on an official visit, he emailed malicious contents about her to the company’s head. Nambudri also sent a morphed nude picture of the woman to her brother. “He continued to stalk and eve-tease the woman electronically for several months,” said special public prosecutor Mary Jayanthi.
After returning to Chennai, she lodged a complaint with cyber wing of the police’s crime branch. The police then registered a case against Namburi.
During the proceedings on Tuesday, Nambudri offered suitable compensation to the victim. Prosecutor Jayanthi opposed stating what he had committed was a serious charge of harassment. Despite getting married after lodging the complaint, the victim-woman had pursued the case, and wanted the ends of justice to be met, said Jayanthi.