Digital Rape Is Not Cyber Rape: What "Digital" Actually Means in Criminal Law

Maj. Vineet Kumar & Mr. Neeraj Soni

Founder & Global President, CyberPeace & Sr. Researcher, Policy & Advocacy CyberPeace

PUBLISHED ON

Sep 1, 2026

A word rooted in medical terminology keeps getting mistaken for a word rooted in technology, and that confusion is not just semantic. On 6 August 2026, it sat at the heart of a case where police in Uttar Pradesh reportedly treated the absence of WhatsApp chats, call recordings, and social media material as grounds to disbelieve a sexual assault complaint altogether, before the Allahabad High Court intervened. For an organisation working at the intersection of digital literacy and public safety, this case is less a story about a legal term and more a case study in how assumptions about digital evidence, when left unchecked, can become a barrier to justice rather than a tool for it. "Digital" here refers to a finger, not a device, and the gap between what police expected and what the law actually required is exactly where this case becomes instructive. Digital rape has nothing to do with the internet. Digit simply means finger, and the word describes non-consensual penetration by a finger, thumb, toe, or similar body part or object. That basic clarification matters because the same investigating officers who were expected to know the law also appear to have leaned on a mistaken evidentiary standard, one where a complaint without a digital trail was treated as a complaint without merit. The judgment that followed says as much about how the criminal justice system treats sexual assault complaints, and how it treats digital evidence, as it does about legal terminology.

The case, in brief

The matter is Arpit Gupta v. State of U.P. and 2 others, 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 571, neutral citation 2026:AHC:168404-DB, decided by a Division Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena. Arpit Gupta, the owner of a Noida based real estate firm, Parit Associates (OPC) Private Limited, approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash an FIR registered against him at Wave City police station, Ghaziabad, alleging rape, sexual harassment, and criminal intimidation. The complainant, a former employee of Gupta's company, alleged sustained workplace sexual harassment culminating in an act legally categorised as digital penetration, along with subsequent threats and intimidation. She resigned in April 2026. What followed procedurally is where the case becomes significant: Gupta filed a separate extortion complaint against her, she was arrested and later released on bail, and only after that sequence did she attempt to formally report the sexual assault, a report the police initially declined to register.

What followed complicates the picture considerably, and is central to why the case reached the High Court at all. On 14 April 2026, Gupta filed his own FIR against the complainant alleging extortion, claiming she had demanded 10 crore rupees from him. She was arrested in connection with that case and secured bail on 21 May 2026. After her release, she attempted to register her own complaint of sexual assault, but police at Wave City station declined to register an FIR. A written complaint dated 7 July 2026 addressed directly to the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, also produced no result. The police investigating officer's report, dated 16 July 2026, went further still, terming her allegations false and characterising the sexual assault complaint as a retaliatory counter-blast to Gupta's extortion case, citing in particular the absence of supporting electronic material such as WhatsApp chats, call recordings, or social media evidence. Only after she approached a Magistrate under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, did the FIR finally get registered, by Magisterial order dated 20 July 2026.

The legal terminology: what "digital rape" actually means under BNS

Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which replaced Section 375 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, defines rape. Clause (b) of Section 63 extends that definition to cover non-penile penetrative acts, specifically insertion, to any extent, of any object or body part other than the penis into specified parts of a woman's body, done without her consent or against her will, subject to the circumstances of absent consent set out in the section. Digital penetration, meaning penetration by finger or thumb, falls squarely within this clause. There is no standalone offence in the BNS titled "digital rape"; the term is a widely used medico-legal shorthand, not a separate statutory category, and the offence itself is prosecuted and punished as rape under Section 64 BNS, which prescribes the punishment provisions. In this particular case, the FIR reportedly also invoked Sections 74, 75(2), and 76 BNS, provisions dealing with assault or use of criminal force with intent to outrage modesty, sexual harassment by a person in a position of authority, and related offences, alongside Section 351(3) BNS concerning criminal intimidation.

CyberPeace View

This is where the case circles back to the concern raised at the outset. The most instructive part of this judgment for the wider public may not be the definition of digital rape at all, but the police's original insistence on WhatsApp chats and call recordings before treating the complaint as credible. That reflex, a growing habit of associating the credibility of any complaint with the existence of a corresponding digital trail, reflects a wider and increasingly common misunderstanding about how evidence actually works in criminal law. Not every offence leaves an electronic footprint, and sexual assault, by its nature, frequently occurs without any accompanying digital record at all. Treating the absence of a chat log or a recording as evidence of falsehood inverts the legal presumption entirely, and risks turning digital literacy gaps within law enforcement into a structural barrier for genuine complainants who have no messages to produce because none were ever exchanged. As India's criminal justice system increasingly interacts with digital evidence, this case is a useful reminder that digital forensics should supplement an investigation, never gatekeep its starting point.

There is a genuinely technology rooted counterpart to this terminology confusion worth flagging, and it sits at the opposite end of the spectrum from where this case began. While "digital rape" has nothing to do with computers, "virtual rape" very much does, and it is an emerging harm India's legal framework is still catching up to. In January 2024, British police opened what was reported as the first investigation of its kind after a minor's avatar was allegedly gang assaulted by other avatars on Meta's metaverse platform, and similar incidents, avatars groped or sexually harassed within minutes of entering platforms like Horizon Worlds, have been documented repeatedly since, including a widely reported case involving psychotherapist Nina Jane Patel as far back as 2021. These incidents involve no physical contact whatsoever, yet researchers and legal scholars studying virtual reality note that immersive VR environments are specifically engineered to create a sense of embodiment, where the brain processes an avatar's violation as something closer to a real bodily experience than a typical online interaction, producing genuine trauma responses in victims. India's legal position here remains only partially settled. The POCSO Act's coverage of non-contact sexual abuse of minors likely extends to avatar based assaults on children, but adult victims of virtual sexual violence in India currently have no clearly dedicated statutory provision, leaving prosecutors to stretch existing harassment and outraging modesty provisions, originally drafted for a physical world, onto a form of harm the legislature has not yet explicitly addressed. As metaverse and VR platforms grow their user base in India, that gap is one worth closing before, rather than after, a case forces the question, much as this one forced the question of how police ought to treat digital evidence.

Conclusion

Two lessons run through this judgment. First, that the law's protection of bodily autonomy extends well beyond narrow, traditional definitions of penetration, a principle Section 63(b) BNS makes explicit. Second, that a complainant reporting a cognizable offence cannot be made to investigate her own case before the police will even open a file. FIR registration is not conviction, and conviction requires investigation, evidence, and trial to follow. What this case asks of the system is simpler than any of that: register the complaint, then do the work of finding out what happened.

References

‍

PUBLISHED ON

Sep 1, 2026

Related Blogs

Big Tech vs Government: The Rising Tensions Over Digital Freedom in India

April 2, 2025

Introduction

Big Tech has been pushing back against regulatory measures, particularly regarding data handling practices. X Corp (formerly Twitter) has taken a prominent stance in India. The platform has filed a petition against the Central and State governments, challenging content-blocking orders and opposing the Center’s newly launched Sahyog portal. The X Corp has furthermore labelled the Sahyog Portal as a 'censorship portal' that enables government agencies to issue blocking orders using a standardized template.

The key regulations governing the tech space in India include the IT Act of 2000, IT Rules 2021 and 2023 (which stress platform accountability and content moderation), and the DPDP Act 2023, which intersects with personal data governance. This petition by the X Corp raises concerns for digital freedom, platform accountability, and the evolving regulatory frameworks in India.

Elon Musk vs Indian Government: Key Issues at Stake

The 2021 IT Rules, particularly Rule 3(1)(d) of Part II, outline intermediaries' obligations regarding ‘Content Takedowns’. Intermediaries must remove or disable access to unlawful content within 36 hours of receiving a court order or government notification. Notably, the rules do not require government takedown requests to be explicitly in writing, raising concerns about potential misuse.

X’s petition also focuses on the Sahyog Portal, a government-run platform that allows various agencies and state police to request content removal directly. They contend that the failure to comply with such orders can expose intermediaries' officers to prosecution. This has sparked controversy, with platforms like Elon Musk’s X arguing that such provisions grant the government excessive control, potentially undermining free speech and fostering undue censorship.

The broader implications include geopolitical tensions, potential business risks for big tech companies, and significant effects on India's digital economy, user engagement, and platform governance. Balancing regulatory compliance with digital rights remains a crucial challenge in this evolving landscape.

The Global Context: Lessons from Other Jurisdictions

The ‘EU's Digital Services Act’ establishes a baseline 'notice and takedown' system. According to the Act, hosting providers, including online platforms, must enable third parties to notify them of illegal content, which they must promptly remove to retain their hosting defence. The DSA also mandates expedited removal processes for notifications from trusted flaggers, user suspension for those with frequent violations, and enhanced protections for minors. Additionally, hosting providers have to adhere to specific content removal obligations, including the elimination of terrorist content within one hour and deploying technology to detect known or new CSAM material and remove it.

In contrast to the EU, the US First Amendment protects speech from state interference but does not extend to private entities. Dominant digital platforms, however, significantly influence discourse by moderating content, shaping narratives, and controlling advertising markets. This dual role creates tension as these platforms balance free speech, platform safety, and profitability.

India has adopted a model closer to the EU's approach, emphasizing content moderation to curb misinformation, false narratives, and harmful content. Drawing from the EU's framework, India could establish third-party notification mechanisms, enforce clear content takedown guidelines, and implement detection measures for harmful content like terrorist material and CSAM within defined timelines. This would balance content regulation with platform accountability while aligning with global best practices.

Key Concerns and Policy Debates

As the issue stands, the main concerns that arise are:

The need for transparency in government orders for takedowns, the reasons and a clear framework for why they are needed and the guidelines for doing so.
The need for balancing digital freedom with national security and the concerns that arise out of it for tech companies. Essentially, the role platforms play in safeguarding the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution of India.
This court ruling by the Karnataka HC will have the potential to redefine the principles upon which the intermediary guidelines function under the Indian laws.

Potential Outcomes and the Way Forward

While we wait for the Hon’ble Court’s directives and orders in response to the filed suit, while the court's decision could favour either side or lead to a negotiated resolution, the broader takeaway is the necessity of collaborative policymaking that balances governmental oversight with platform accountability. This debate underscores the pressing need for a structured and transparent regulatory framework for content moderation. Additionally, this case also highlights the importance of due process in content regulation and the need for legal clarity for tech companies operating in India. Ultimately, a consultative and principles-based approach will be key to ensuring a fair and open digital ecosystem.

References

From Pop-ups to Predators: Mumbai's Encounter with Cyber Deception

January 11, 2024

Introduction

In the boundless world of the internet—a digital frontier rife with both the promise of connectivity and the peril of deception—a new spectre stealthily traverses the electronic pathways, casting a shadow of fear and uncertainty. This insidious entity, cloaked in the mantle of supposed authority, preys upon the unsuspecting populace navigating the virtual expanse. And in the heart of India's vibrant tapestry of diverse cultures and ceaseless activity, Mumbai stands out—a sprawling metropolis of dreams and dynamism, yet also the stage for a chilling saga, a cyber charade of foul play and fraud.

The city's relentless buzz and hum were punctuated by a harrowing tale that unwound within the unassuming confines of a Kharghar residence, where a 46-year-old individual's brush with this digital demon would unfold. His typical day veered into the remarkable as his laptop screen lit up with an ominous pop-up, infusing his routine with shock and dread. This deceiving popup, masquerading as an official communication from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), demanded an exorbitant fine of Rs 33,850 for ostensibly browsing adult content—an offence he had not committed.

The Cyber Deception

This tale of deceit and psychological warfare is not unique, nor is it the first of its kind. It finds echoes in the tragic narrative that unfurled in September 2023, far south in the verdant land of Kerala, where a young life was tragically cut short. A 17-year-old boy from Kozhikode, caught in the snare of similar fraudulent claims of NCRB admonishment, was driven to the extreme despair of taking his own life after being coerced to dispense Rs 30,000 for visiting an unauthorised website, as the pop-up falsely alleged.

Sewn with a seam of dread and finesse, the pop-up which appeared in another recent case from Navi Mumbai, highlights the virtual tapestry of psychological manipulation, woven with threatening threads designed to entrap and frighten. In this recent incident a 46-year-old Kharghar resident was left in shock when he got a pop-up on a laptop screen warning him to pay Rs 33,850 fine for surfing a porn website. This message appeared from fake website of NCRB created to dupe people. Pronouncing that the user has engaged in browsing the Internet for some activities, it delivers an ultimatum: Pay the fine within six hours, or face the critical implications of a criminal case. The panacea it offers is simple—settle the demanded amount and the shackles on the browser shall be lifted.

It was amidst this web of lies that the man from Kharghar found himself entangled. The story, as retold by his brother, an IT professional, reveals the close brush with disaster that was narrowly averted. His brother's panicked call, and the rush of relief upon realising the scam, underscores the ruthless efficiency of these cyber predators. They leverage sophisticated deceptive tactics, even specifying convenient online payment methods to ensnare their prey into swift compliance.

A glimmer of reason pierced through the narrative as Maharashtra State cyber cell special inspector general Yashasvi Yadav illuminated the fraudulent nature of such claims. With authoritative clarity, he revealed that no legitimate government agency would solicit fines in such an underhanded fashion. Rather, official procedures involve FIRs or court trials—a structured route distant from the scaremongering of these online hoaxes.

Expert Take

Concurring with this perspective, cyber experts facsimiles. By tapping into primal fears and conjuring up grave consequences, the fraudsters follow a time-worn strategy, cloaking their ill intentions in the guise of governmental or legal authority—a phantasm of legitimacy that prompts hasty financial decisions.

To pierce the veil of this deception, D. Sivanandhan, the former Mumbai police commissioner, categorically denounced the absurdity of the hoax. With a voice tinged by experience and authority, he made it abundantly clear that the NCRB's role did not encompass the imposition of fines without due process of law—a cornerstone of justice grossly misrepresented by the scam's premise.

New Lesson

This scam, a devilish masquerade given weight by deceit, might surge with the pretence of novelty, but its underpinnings are far from new. The manufactured pop-ups that propagate across corners of the internet issue fabricated pronouncements, feigned lockdowns of browsers, and the spectre of being implicated in taboo behaviours. The elaborate ruse doesn't halt at mere declarations; it painstakingly fabricates a semblance of procedural legitimacy by preemptively setting penalties and detailing methods for immediate financial redress.

Yet another dimension of the scam further bolsters the illusion—the ominous ticking clock set for payment, endowing the fraud with an urgency that can disorient and push victims towards rash action. With a spurious 'Payment Details' section, complete with options to pay through widely accepted credit networks like Visa or MasterCard, the sham dangles the false promise of restored access, should the victim acquiesce to their demands.

Conclusion

In an era where the demarcation between illusion and reality is nebulous, the impetus for individual vigilance and scepticism is ever-critical. The collective consciousness, the shared responsibility we hold as inhabitants of the digital domain, becomes paramount to withstand the temptation of fear-inducing claims and to dispel the shadows cast by digital deception. It is only through informed caution, critical scrutiny, and a steadfast refusal to capitulate to intimidation that we may successfully unmask these virtual masquerades and safeguard the integrity of our digital existence.

References:

How Cultural Narratives Shape the Misinformation We Believe

November 29, 2024

Introduction

Misinformation spreads differently with respect to different host environments, making localised cultural narratives and practices major factors in how an individual deals with it when presented in a certain place and to a certain group. In the digital age, with time-sensitive data, an overload of information creates a lot of noise which makes it harder to make informed decisions. There are also cases where customary beliefs, biases, and cultural narratives are presented in ways that are untrue. These instances often include misinformation related to health and superstitions, historical distortions, and natural disasters and myths. Such narratives, when shared on social media, can lead to widespread misconceptions and even harmful behaviours. For example, it may also include misinformation that goes against scientific consensus or misinformation that contradicts simple, objectively true facts. In such ambiguous situations, there is a higher probability of people falling back on patterns in determining what information is right or wrong. Here, cultural narratives and cognitive biases come into play.

Misinformation and Cultural Narratives

Cultural narratives include deep-seated cultural beliefs, folklore, and national myths. These narratives can also be used to manipulate public opinion as political and social groups often leverage them to proceed with their agenda. Lack of digital literacy and increasing information online along with social media platforms and their focus on generating algorithms for engagement aids this process. The consequences can even prove to be fatal.

During COVID-19, false claims targeted certain groups as being virus spreaders fueled stigmatisation and eroded trust. Similarly, vaccine misinformation, rooted in cultural fears, spurred hesitancy and outbreaks. Beyond health, manipulated narratives about parts of history are spread depending on the sentiments of the people. These instances exploit emotional and cultural sensitivities, emphasizing the urgent need for media literacy and awareness to counter their harmful effects.

CyberPeace Recommendations

As cultural narratives may lead to knowingly or unknowingly spreading misinformation on social media platforms, netizens must consider preventive measures that can help them build resilience against any biased misinformation they may encounter. The social media platforms must also develop strategies to counter such types of misinformation.

Digital and Information Literacy: Netizens must encourage developing digital and information literacy in a time of information overload on social media platforms.
The Role Of Media: The media outlets can play an active role, by strictly providing fact-based information and not feeding into narratives to garner eyeballs. Social media platforms also need to be careful while creating algorithms focused on consistent engagement.
Community Fact-Checking: As localised information prevails in such cases, owing to the time-sensitive nature, immediate debunking of precarious information by authorities at the ground level is encouraged.
Scientifically Correct Information: Starting early and addressing myths and biases through factual and scientifically correct information is also encouraged.

Conclusion

Cultural narratives are an ingrained part of society, and they might affect how misinformation spreads and what we end up believing. Acknowledging this process and taking counter measures will allow us to move further and take steps for intervention regarding tackling the spread of misinformation specifically aided by cultural narratives. Efforts to raise awareness and educate the public to seek sound information, practice verification checks, and visit official channels are of the utmost importance.

References

‍

Digital Rape Is Not Cyber Rape: What "Digital" Actually Means in Criminal Law

The case, in brief

The legal terminology: what "digital rape" actually means under BNS

CyberPeace View

Conclusion

References

Related Blogs

Introduction

Elon Musk vs Indian Government: Key Issues at Stake

The Global Context: Lessons from Other Jurisdictions

Key Concerns and Policy Debates

Potential Outcomes and the Way Forward

References

Introduction

The Cyber Deception

Expert Take

New Lesson

Conclusion

References:

Introduction

Misinformation and Cultural Narratives

CyberPeace Recommendations

Conclusion

References

Become a part of our vision to make the digital world safe for all!

Awareness

Engagement

Play your part for CyberPeace