NAVIGATING THE ‘FIFTH DOMAIN’: THE EFFICACY OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE IN PROSECUTING CYBERCRIMES AGAINST WOMEN

AUTHOR – AALIYA KHATOON* & DR. JYOTSNA SINGH**

* LLM. (CRIMINAL LAW) STUDENT AT AMITY LAW SCHOOL, AMITY UNIVERSITY UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW CAMPUS
** ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AT AMITY LAW SCHOOL, AMITY UNIVERSITY UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW CAMPUS

BEST CITATION – AALIYA KHATOON & DR. JYOTSNA SINGH, NAVIGATING THE ‘FIFTH DOMAIN’: THE EFFICACY OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE IN PROSECUTING CYBERCRIMES AGAINST WOMEN, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (2) OF 2026, PG. 395-402, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

ABSTRACT

The rapid integration of digital spaces into daily life has precipitated a paradigm shift in gender-based violence, shifting these offenses into the “fifth domain” of cyberspace. Despite the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) serving as the lex specialis for electronic governance, the substantive burden of prosecuting digital crimes against women such as online sexual harassment, cyber stalking, and the non-consensual dissemination of intimate imagery (NCII) continues to fall heavily upon the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). This research paper critically examines the doctrinal, procedural, and sociological efficacy of specific IPC provisions, namely Sections 354A, 354D, 292, 499, 509, and 366A, in addressing modern digital crimes. Supported by National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) 2022 data, the analysis explores how the Indian judiciary has progressively re-interpreted Victorian-era concepts of “modesty,” “privacy,” and physical “presence” to protect the virtual body of the female victim. Furthermore, the paper juxtaposes these IPC sections with complementary IT Act provisions and landmark judgments (such as Avnish Bajaj and X v. Union of India) to highlight the evolving landscape of intermediary liability and digital defamation. Ultimately, the study concludes that while substantive laws have been judicially adapted to recognize virtual harm, a significant “justice gap” remains. The promise of digital safety is severely stifled by procedural bottlenecks, most notably the extraterritorial acquisition of digital evidence under Section 91 of the CrPC, cross-border jurisdictional disputes, and severe delays in the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) process.

Keywords: Cybercrimes against Women, Indian Penal Code (IPC), Digital Jurisprudence, Intermediary Liability, Cyber Stalking.