#FactCheck-Mock Drill Video from Kishtwar Falsely Shared as Terror Attack in Jammu & Kashmir

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

1. https://www.barandbench.com/news/digital-rape-allahabad-hc-orders-inquiry-against-senior-ghaziabad-police-officers-for-not-filing-fir
2. https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-hc-police-cant-refuse-fir-sexual-complaint-non-production-evidence-545374

‍

Introduction:

Digital Forensics, as the term goes, “It is the process of collecting, preserving, identifying, analyzing, and presenting digital evidence in a way that the evidence is legally admitted.”

It is like a detective work in the digital realm, where investigators use various specific methods to find deleted files and to reveal destroyed messages.

The reason why Digital Forensics is an important field is because with the  advancement of technology and the use of digital devices, the role of Digital Forensics in preserving the evidence and protecting our data from cybercrime is becoming more and more crucial.

Digital Forensics is used in various situations such as:

• Criminal Investigations: Digital Forensics enables investigators to trace back cyber threat actors and further identify victims of the crime to  gather evidence needed to punish criminals.

• Legal issues: Digital Forensics might aid in legal  matters involving intellectual property infringement and data breaches etc.

Types of Digital Data in Digital Forensics:

1.Persistent (Non-volatile) Data :-

• This type of Data Remains Intact When The Computer Is Turned Off.
• ex. Hard-disk, Flash-drives

2.  Volatile Data :-

• These types of Data Would Be Lost When The Computer Is Turned Off.
• ex. Temp. Files, Unsaved OpenFiles, etc.

The Digital Forensics Process

The process is as follows

• Evidence Acquisition: This process involves making an exact copy (forensic image) of the storage devices such as hard drives, SSD or mobile devices. The goal is to preserve the original data without changing it.

• Data Recovery: After acquiring the forensic image, the analysts use  tools to recover deleted, hidden or the  encrypted data inside the device . 

• Timeline Analysis: Analysts use timestamp information from files, and system logs to reconstruct the timeline of activities on a device. This helps in understanding how an incident spanned out and who was involved in it.

• Malware Analysis: In cases involving  security breaches, analysts analyze malware samples to understand their behavior, impact, and origins. various reverse engineering techniques are used to analyze the malicious code.

Types of tools:

• Faraday Bags: Faraday bags are generally the first step in digital evidence capture. These bags are generally made of conductive materials, which are used to shield our electronic devices from external waves such as WiFi, Bluetooth, and mobile cellular signals, which in turn protects the digital evidence from external tampering.

• Data recovery : These types of software are generally used for the recovery of deleted files and their associated data.  Ex. Magnet Forensics, Access data, X-Ways

• Disk imaging and analysis :These types of softwares are Generally used to replicate the data storage devices and then perform further analysis on it ex. FTKImager, Autopsy, and, Sleuth Kit

• File carving tools: They are generally used to extract information from the embedded files in the image made. Ex.Foremost, Binwalk, Scalpel

Some common tools:

• EnCase: It is a tool for acquiring, analyzing, and reporting digital evidence.

• Autopsy: It is an open-source platform generally used for analyzing hard drives and smartphones.

• Volatility: It is a framework used generally for memory forensics to analyze volatile memory dumps and extract info.

• Sleuth Kit: It is a package of CLI tools for investigating disk images and its associated file systems.

• Cellebrite UFED: It is a tool generally used for mobile forensics.

Challenges in the Field:

• Encryption: Encryption plays a major challenge as the encrypted data requires specialized techniques and tools for decryption.

• Anti-Forensic Techniques: Anti-Forensics techniques play a major challenge as the criminals often use anti-forensic methods to cover their tracks, making it challenging to get the digital evidence.

• Data Volume and Complexity: The large volume of digital data and the diversity of various devices create challenges in evidence collection and analysis.

The Future of Digital Forensics: A Perspective

‍With the  growth of technology and the vast presence of digital data, the challenges and opportunities in Digital Forensics keep on updating themselves. Due to the onset of new technology and the ever growing  necessity of cloud storage, mobile devices, and the IoT (Internet of Things), investigators will have to develop new strategies and should be ready to adapt and learn from the new shaping of the tech world.

Conclusion:

‍Digital Forensics is an essential field in the recent era for ensuring fairness in the digital era. By collecting, inspecting, and analyzing the digital data, the Digital Forensics investigators can arrive lawfully at  the prosecution of criminals and the settlement of civil disputes. Nowadays with technology on one hand progressing continuously, the discipline of Digital Forensics will certainly become even more pivotal in the case of investigations in the years to come.

Executive Summary

‍

A volcano erupted at Indonesia’s Anak Krakatau on the night of September 4, 2026. A video is being shared on social media in connection with the eruption. The video shows lava rising high into the air following a volcanic eruption, with people seen fleeing the area. Some social media users are sharing the video claiming that it shows the eruption of Indonesia’s Anak Krakatau volcano. Research by CyberPeace found that the viral video is AI-generated. The video was created with the help of AI tools. However, four volcanoes, including Anak Krakatau, have erupted in Indonesia.

‍

Claim

‍

An Instagram user shared the viral video with the caption: “Indonesia’s Anak Krakatau volcano erupted Friday night. According to MAGMA Indonesia, lava fountains were seen rising from the volcano’s crater, while ash plumes reached a height of up to 400 metres. The volcano remains at Level III, with authorities enforcing a 3-kilometre exclusion zone around the crater.”

https://www.instagram.com/reels/DdBfQprThPA/ 

https://archive.ph/hvd0G 

Fact Check

‍

To investigate the viral video, we examined it closely and noticed several inconsistencies. At the beginning of the video, people can be seen standing calmly as the volcanic eruption takes place. Shortly afterward, the vehicles parked there suddenly begin moving. In one of the cars, no driver is visible. Meanwhile, the legs of a person running on the road disappear, and the person appears to merge into the background. These visual inconsistencies raised suspicions that the viral video had been created using AI tools.

‍

‍

We checked the video using the AI detection tool Hive Moderation, which indicated that there was a more than 94 percent likelihood that the video was AI-generated.

‍

‍

We checked the keyframes of the video using the AI detection tool Was It AI, which identified the video as 97 percent likely to be AI-generated.

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

The Anak Krakatau volcano in Indonesia erupted on the night of September 4, 2026. However, our research found that the video being shared in connection with the eruption was created using AI tools. Visual inconsistencies in the footage, along with the results of AI detection tools, indicate that the video is AI-generated and does not show genuine footage of the Anak Krakatau eruption. Therefore, the claim that the viral video shows the September 4 eruption of Indonesia’s Anak Krakatau volcano is false.

‍