Luring Women Through 'Romance Fraud' To Extort Sexual Acts Is Rape By Deception: Madras High Court Upholds Life Conviction Of 'Suji @ Kasi'

"Consent obtained by deception as to the very nature and purpose of the meeting is vitiated in law. Consent is the product of a conscious and reasoned choice made by a person possessing the capacity to understand the nature and consequences of the proposed act." The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 14, 2026, held that luring women through social media under the guise of "romance fraud" to record intimate acts and subsequently extorting further sexual favors through blackmail constitutes rape by deception.

A bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan observed that such conduct vitiates consent under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as the victim’s submission is rooted in a misconception of fact and coercive circumstances.

The appellant, Suji @ Kasi, was challenging a judgment of the Fastrack Mahila Court, Nagercoil, which had sentenced him to life imprisonment until natural death. The trial court found him guilty of repeated sexual exploitation of a victim after luring her through Facebook and WhatsApp. The High Court, while dismissing the appeal, categorized the case as a classic illustration of "sexual extortion" facilitated by modern technology and emotional manipulation.

Court Defines 'Romance Fraud' And 'Sexual Extortion'

The Court noted that in the digital era, "romance fraud" involves a perpetrator creating a false online identity to cultivate a victim's trust with the ulterior motive of sexual or financial exploitation. The bench observed that the perpetrator engineers circumstances that compel the victim to share intimate material, which is then used as an instrument of coercion. This pattern, the Court held, deprives a woman of her free will and autonomy, rendering any apparent consent legally ineffective.

Stages Of Deception Vitiate Voluntary Consent

The High Court identified four distinct stages in the commission of the offence, starting from the initial contact on social media. The bench found that the accused used persistent inducements, including false promises of employment and marriage, to secure the victim's presence. "The sequence of events leaves no room for doubt that the deception commenced from the very inception of the relationship," the Court observed, noting that the accused never intended to fulfill his promises.

Deception Regarding Purpose Of Meeting Negates Consent

The Court emphasized that the victim was induced to accompany the accused solely on the belief that they would discuss marriage and employment. By falsely representing the purpose of the meeting and then restraining the victim by locking the vehicle, the accused deprived her of meaningful choice. The bench held that "hesitation is a natural and significant response" which should have signaled the lack of readiness to engage in sexual activity.

Statutory Presumption Under Section 114-A Attracted

The bench held that since the victim clearly deposed that she never consented to the physical relationship and that the accused manipulated coercive circumstances, the statutory presumption under Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act applies. The Court observed that the prosecution is not required to establish the absence of consent by any extraordinary standard once the prosecutrix has deposed that she did not consent.

No 65-B Certificate Required For Primary Electronic Evidence

While dealing with the admissibility of an Apple MacBook containing over 355 obscene videos, the Court rejected the defense plea regarding the lack of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, the bench held that since the original device was recovered from the accused's possession and produced before the court, it constitutes primary evidence.

Electronic Evidence Establishes Unbroken Chain Of Custody

The Court found that the prosecution established the authenticity and continuity of the electronic evidence through seizure mahazars and expert forensic reports. The bench noted that the accused attempted to mislead the investigation regarding the recording device, but the "continuity features" of Apple devices proved the synchronization of data. "The expert evidence only explains the contents retrieved from the original electronic device," the Court remarked.

Delay In Lodging FIR Explained By Continuous Blackmail

The bench refused to interfere with the conviction on the grounds of a one-year delay in filing the FIR. The Court observed that in sexual offences, delay is often the natural consequence of fear, trauma, and social stigma. In this case, the victim was under a "real and continuing threat" that her intimate images would be published on social media, which served as a powerful psychological restraint.

Court Rejects Plea Of Consensual Relationship

The bench distinguished between a failed romantic relationship and one induced by deception. It held that if an accused makes a promise to marry solely to obtain consent for sexual relations without any intention of fulfilling it, the consent is vitiated. The Court found that Kasi’s actions were "calculated and persistent," disclosing a sustained pattern of manipulation rather than an impulsive act.

Justice Anand Venkatesh On 'Vicarious Trauma' Of Judges

In a poignant postscript, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh addressed the "unacceptable harm" the digital age imposes on legal professionals. He noted that the system now requires investigators and judges to become "spectators to the violation of human dignity" by watching graphic, perverted material. The judge observed that human brains cannot distinguish between real-life trauma and high-definition video, leading to real psychological harm known as "vicarious trauma."

Need For Institutional Responses To Digital Crimes

The bench called for the judiciary and institutional leaders to build responses that protect those who carry the system, including mandatory psychological screening and decompression protocols. Justice Venkatesh remarked that while the law has checks for digital file manipulation, it has ignored how these files "manipulate and harm the human minds required to judge them." He urged for measures to ensure the integrity of a justice system that depends on human judgment.

The High Court concluded that the prosecution proved the charges under Sections 376(2)(n), 417, 354(A), 294(b), 354(c) of the IPC, and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act beyond reasonable doubt. Finding Kasi to be a "habitual sexual predator," the bench affirmed the life sentence, stating that awarding anything less would neither meet the ends of justice nor have a deterrent effect.

Date of Decision: 14 July 2026