Minors should be taught about ‘virtual touch’ to be safe on social media: Delhi High Court
Case title: Kamlesh Devi vs State of Delhi NCT & ANR.
Case no.: BAIL APPLN.NO. 216 OF 2024
Dated on: 6th May 2024
Quorum: Justice Hon’ble Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The present application under section 439 of the criminal procedure code 1973, has been flied on behalf of the applicant seeking regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing No.335/2021, registered at Ranhola, police station Delhi for offence punishable under section 363 of the India Penal code, 1860. It is case of the prosecution that on 30.05.2021, the present FIR was lodged by the complainant I.e Smt. X, who had reported that her daughter i.e., ‘S’ aged approximately 16 years was missing. Thereafter, the present FIR was lodged under section 363 of IPC. On 23.07.2021, the mother of the prosecutrix accompanied by the prosecutrix herself, had visited the police station stating that the minor victim had been recovered from Bhind, Madhya Pradesh. The minor victim was allegedly kidnapped by a person she met on social media and subsequently kept confined in a room, where she was sexually assaulted for around 20-25 days. Later, she was coerced into marriage with a 45-year-old man against her will, in exchange for money.
The statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C revealed shocking details of the ordeal she had endured. She stated that she had come in contact with the co-accused, Rajiv, through social media in 2021. On 29th July 2021, she went to meet Rajiv at Madhuban Chowk Delhi, where she was allegedly given an intoxicating drink and kidnapped. She was taken to Bhind, Madhya Pradesh, where she was confined in a locked room and sexually assaulted by Rajiv. The prosecutrix further alleged that all the family members of Rajiv, including Kamlesh Devi, the present applicant/accused, were involved in the commission of the offense. She specifically accused Kamlesh Devi of catching her when she attempted to escape and physically assaulted her. Thereafter, the chargesheet in the said case was filed for offence punishable under section 363, 365, 372, 376, (2)(n). 344,346,34 of the IPC and section 6, 17 of the protection of children from sexual offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The appellant learned counsel argues that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the FIR does not disclose the role of the present applicant in any manner and further statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C does not assign any specific role to the applicant. He further submitted that there are material inconsistencies in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. meaning thereby, that prosecutrix is falsely implicating the present applicant.
It is further argued that the prosecutrix was recovered from the house of present applicant of other co-accused I.e Rammohan and not from the house of the present applicant. It is further submitted that the present applicant is in Judicial Custody for approximately 19 months and that the present applicant is a housewife and is dependent on her family for her livelihood. It is further submitted that the present applicant is a resident of Madhya Pradesh whereas the prosecutrix is resident of Delhi and therefore there is no change of her influencing the witness or tampering with the evidence. It is submitted that the trail in the present case will take long time to conclude thus, the present applicant be enlarged on Bail.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The learned respondent APP submitted by state opposes the present bail application and argues that as per allegations and supporting material on record, there are serious allegations against the accused for abetment of kidnapping and rape. It is further submitted that 4 witnesses have been examined out of 18 witnesses and that the prosecutrix has also been examined who has supported the case of prosecution. It is further argued that if the applicant is enlarged bail there is strong possibility that the applicant may threaten or influence the remaining witnesses. It is argued therefore, that the present bail application be dismissed.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 439 of code of criminal procedure: The High court or court of session may direct the release on bail of any person who is in custody and has been charged with an offence.
Section 363 of Indian Penal Code 1860: Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 365 of Indian Penal Code 1860: Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 376 of Indian Penal Code 1860: whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub- section (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for term which shall not be less than ten years, but which extended to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 6 of Protection of children from sexual offence (POCSO Act): whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 20 years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also liable to fine.
Section 17 of Protection of children from sexual offence (POCSO Act): Punishment for abetment.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Delhi High Court directed stakeholders such as schools, colleges, Delhi State Legal Services Authority, and Delhi Judicial Academy to incorporate education about ‘virtual touch’ into their curriculum alongside traditional concepts of ‘Good’ and ‘Bad Touch’, emphasizing its potential dangers.
A bail plea was filed by the petitioner who was accused of involvement in the kidnapping and exploitation of a 16-year-old girl. The court said that the stressed the necessity of educating children about ‘virtual touch’ to address the risks prevalent in the digital sphere. The Court said, “Just as children are taught to exercise caution in the physical world, efforts must be made taken to teach them to develop critical thinking skills to assess the credibility of online contacts and safeguard their personal information.” Explaining the concept, the Court emphasized that educating minors about ‘virtual touch’ entails instilling knowledge about appropriate online conduct, identifying signs of potential predatory behavior, and understanding the significance of privacy settings and online boundaries. The Court said, “Moreover, parents, guardians, and educators play a crucial role in fostering digital literacy and promoting responsible online conduct among minors. By fostering open communication channels and providing guidance on navigating the digital landscape, adults can empower children to make informed decisions and protect themselves from online threats. The Court added, “The need of the hour in this case is also to send a message through this order/judgment to the concerned stakeholders such as schools and colleges, Delhi State Legal Services Authority as well as Delhi Judicial Academy to hold programs, workshops, and conferences focusing not only on the traditional concepts of ‘Good’ and ‘Bad Touch’ but also on the emerging concept of ‘Virtual Touch’ and its potential dangers. This Court, therefore, emphasizes that the concerned stakeholders should include in their curriculum apart from the education about good touch and bad touch the virtual touch and its repercussions and danger. Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – HARIRAGHAVA JP
