The Supreme Court of India has held that the non-recovery of a mobile phone or the video material in question is not fatal to a conviction for criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), provided there is otherwise credible testimonial evidence of the threat. The Court also held that a threat to publish a video of a woman disrobing or bathing on social media constitutes a threat to “impute unchastity” under Part II of Section 506 IPC, as it violates her privacy, dignity, and sexual autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh dismissed the appeal against the conviction of the appellant, Vijayakumar, but modified his sentence of three years of rigorous imprisonment to the period of custody already undergone.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a complaint filed by a victim-prosecutrix (PW-1) on August 10, 2015, before the All Women Police Station, Gingee, Tamil Nadu. According to the prosecution, the appellant and the prosecutrix were involved in a romantic and physical relationship for approximately two years, starting in 2013. The prosecutrix alleged that the appellant established a physical relationship with her on a false promise of marriage.
The prosecutrix further alleged that one day, the appellant left his mobile phone in the bathroom with the camera switched on, secretly recording her while she was taking a bath. Two days later, the appellant informed her of the recording but assured her he would delete it.
The relationship eventually broke down. When the prosecutrix’s family began looking for marriage alliances, the appellant allegedly tied a yellow thread as a Mangalsutra around her neck at a temple but later backtracked. When she insisted on living with him as his wife, the appellant allegedly threatened her, stating that if she made any further phone calls or contact, he would upload the bathing video to Facebook. He also insisted that she remove the Mangalsutra and tear up their photographs.
Following an investigation, the appellant was charged under Sections 376 (rape), 493 (cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage), 354C (voyeurism), and Part II of Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.
Rulings of the Lower Courts
The Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram, acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 376, 493, and 354C IPC. The Trial Court concluded that the physical relationship was consensual, as the prosecutrix was a mature adult who understood the consequences of her acts. The charge of voyeurism under Section 354C IPC was held not proved because the prosecution failed to produce the mobile phone or the video.
However, the Trial Court convicted the appellant under Part II of Section 506 IPC based on the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1), which was corroborated by her sisters (PW-5 and PW-10) and sister-in-law (PW-7). The appellant was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 3,000.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras upheld this conviction on February 28, 2024, noting that the intention of the appellant was to intimidate the prosecutrix so that she would not demand a married life with him. The appellant subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Contentions
The appellant argued that since he was acquitted of the interrelated charges under Sections 376, 493, and 354C IPC, a standalone conviction under Section 506 IPC could not be sustained.
It was further contended that the prosecution had failed to recover either the mobile phone or the alleged videography during the investigation. In the absence of physical recovery of the device or the video, the appellant argued that the charge of criminal intimidation based on a threat to release such a video could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly, the appellant claimed the complaint was filed out of spite after their relationship failed.
State’s Contentions
The State supported the findings of the lower courts, arguing that the oral testimony of the prosecutrix was highly credible and fully corroborated by independent family witnesses who observed her distress and heard her nervous phone conversations. The State maintained that the lack of physical recovery did not dilute the threat felt by the victim.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the case by breaking down the independent nature of charges, the evolving definition of “chastity,” the legal standards of criminal intimidation, and the rules of evidence in interpersonal relationships.
1. Independent Examination of Charges
The Court rejected the appellant’s plea that his acquittal under Sections 376, 493, and 354C IPC automatically required an acquittal under Section 506 IPC. The Bench observed:
“Facts involved in a series of transactions, though related, may independently exist to provide the foundational ingredients for a distinct offence.”
The Court drew a clear distinction between a consensual relationship and consent to share private media:
“…it would be very difficult to contemplate that a woman, even in a consensual relationship, would consent to or condone any act by her partner of releasing images of a very private act in the public domain, which would have the effect of violating her privacy and dignity, causing acute embarrassment.”
2. Modern Understanding of “Chastity” and Article 21
The Supreme Court analyzed whether a threat to upload a bathing video amounts to a threat to “impute unchastity to a woman” under Section 506 IPC. Justice Kotiswar Singh traced the history of “chastity” from traditional colonial property laws to modern constitutional principles.
Citing the landmark Constitution Bench ruling in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39, the Court highlighted:
“Anachronistic conceptions of ‘chastity’ and ‘honour’ have dictated the social and cultural lives of women, depriving them of the guarantees of dignity and privacy, contained in the Constitution.”
The Court also referenced Pawan Kumar v. State of H.P. (2017) 7 SCC 780 and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, asserting that an individual’s dignity and privacy are non-negotiable. It observed:
“Chastity, thus, has to be determined not only by societal values but also based on her individual sensitivities as regards her sexuality. Chastity of a woman should be understood as a person’s control over their own sexual choices, in light of freedom of self-determination.”
“Any unwarranted interference with such sexual autonomy can be said to impute unchastity, insofar as it prevents the affected person from controlling the information and choices that she chooses to make with respect to her sexual life.”
Consequently, the Court held that the threat to upload a naked bathing video on Facebook is a direct assault on her chastity under Part II of Section 506 IPC.
3. Non-Recovery of Mobile Phone/Videography
Addressing the core defense of non-recovery, the Court ruled that the physical seizure of the instrument of crime is not a mandatory prerequisite for a conviction if other credible evidence is present. Citing Goverdhan v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) 3 SCC 378, the Court noted that weapon recovery is not sine qua non for conviction.
The Court introduced a “toy gun” analogy to explain how criminal intimidation operates based on the victim’s genuine perception. If a person is threatened with a realistic toy gun and acts out of fear, the offense of criminal intimidation is complete because a threat was issued and a genuine “alarm” was caused. The Court concluded:
“The failure of the prosecution to procure and produce the mobile phone or video would not be fatal, so long as the prosecutrix was under the genuine belief that it existed.”
4. Special Knowledge and Interpersonal Relationships (Section 106 and 114)
The Court addressed how private details of romantic relationships are handled under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Under Section 106, when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact shifts to them.
The Bench extended this concept from physical boundaries to “interpersonal relationships”:
“…this knowledge, however, need not be confined to acts happening within a certain physical space; it can also extend to interpersonal relationships which form an intangible space formed by the relationship and any incident happening within that interpersonal realm will be known only to the individuals forming the space.”
Since the foundational fact of a two-year intimate relationship was established, the Court held that the burden shifted to the appellant to offer an explanation regarding the specific interactions during his Section 313 CrPC examination.
5. Failure of the Defense to Impeach Credibility
The Bench pointed out that during cross-examination, the defense did not impeach the credibility of the prosecutrix using Sections 140, 146, or 155 of the Evidence Act.
Furthermore, during the Section 313 CrPC examination, the appellant simply responded with “False evidence” to every question. The Court observed:
“…he chose not to utilise the full opportunity granted to him to defend himself by examining himself or any other witness in his defence… his studied silence does not help him.”
The Court also referenced Vadivelu Thevar: Chinniah Servai v. State of Madras (1957) to emphasize that courts prioritize the “quality and not the quantity of the evidence,” and Sohrab v. State of M.P. (1972) to reaffirm that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) is not a sound rule of law in India.
6. Lapse of the Investigating Officer (IO)
The Court expressed strong disapproval of the police investigation regarding the failure to retrieve the digital evidence:
“This lapse on the part of IO is disappointing to say the least. In a case like the present one, where the offence involves digital evidence, it is the onerous responsibility of the IO to recover such an evidence and failure to do so may be attributable to incompetency of the IO or lack of expertise…”
The Bench directed that such lapses be brought to the attention of competent authorities to ensure correct investigative standards in the future.
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, determining that the charge under Section 503 IPC, punishable under Part II of Section 506 IPC, was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Citing Mekala Sivaiah v. State of A.P. (2022) 8 SCC 253, the Court noted that it does not generally interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a manifest illegality or grave miscarriage of justice.
However, taking into consideration that the incident transpired in 2015 and the passage of time, the Court modified the sentence. It ordered that the interest of justice would be served by reducing the sentence to the period of custody already undergone by the appellant. The appellant’s bail bond and surety were ordered to be discharged.
Case Details
- Case Title: Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Inspector of Police
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2859 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
- Date of Judgment: May 22, 2026
