Recently, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man under Part II of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code for threatening to upload a woman’s private bathing video on social media, while holding that the concept of “unchastity” under criminal law must be interpreted in light of dignity, privacy, and sexual autonomy protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court observed that “chastity is not to be seen from the narrow perspective of sexual behaviour cloistered by traditional moral values only, but also from the vantage point of dignity and autonomy associated with the sexual autonomy of a woman.”
Brief facts:
The case stemmed from a criminal prosecution arising out of allegations under Sections 376, 493, 354C, and Part II of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, where the complainant alleged that the accused had secretly recorded her while she was bathing during the course of their relationship and later threatened to upload the video on social media. The woman further alleged that the accused had induced her into a physical relationship on the promise of marriage and had pressured her during pregnancy.
Following the investigation, the matter proceeded before the Fast Track Mahila Court, which acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 376, 493, and 354C of the IPC, holding that the relationship was consensual and that the alleged videography had not been recovered. However, relying upon the testimony of the prosecutrix and corroborative evidence, the Trial Court convicted the accused under Part II of Section 506 of the IPC for criminal intimidation involving a threat to impute unchastity to a woman. The Madras High Court affirmed the conviction, leading to the appeal before the Apex Court.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant argued that once the Trial Court had acquitted him of charges under Sections 376, 493, and 354C of the IPC, the conviction under Part II of Section 506 of the IPC could not independently survive because all allegations arose out of the same set of facts. It was further contended that the prosecution had failed to recover either the mobile phone or the alleged videography and, therefore, there was no legally admissible material to establish the existence of the alleged video or the alleged threat. The Appellant also claimed that the complaint was lodged due to bitterness arising out of a failed relationship after he refused to marry the prosecutrix.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The State, on the other hand, supported the concurrent findings of the courts below and argued that the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the IPC had to be independently examined, irrespective of acquittal on other charges. The Counsel submitted that the testimony of the prosecutrix, corroborated by her sisters and the surrounding circumstances, clearly established that the Appellant had threatened to upload her bathing video on social media in order to alarm and intimidate her. The prosecution further contended that recovery of the digital device was not a sine qua non for conviction when credible oral evidence sufficiently established the existence of the threat.
Observation of the Court:
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed, “chastity is not to be seen from the narrow perspective of sexual behaviour cloistered by traditional moral values only, but also from the vantage point of dignity and autonomy associated with the sexual autonomy of a woman. Any such reprehensible act which seeks to lower or tarnish the dignity of a woman relating to her sexual autonomy and identity, which she seeks to jealously guard, can be said to be an assault on her chastity amounting to imputing unchastity to the woman.”
The Court observed that the offence of criminal intimidation under Sections 503 and 506 of the IPC has to be examined independently even when the accused stands acquitted of other connected offences. The Bench clarified that acquittal under Sections 376, 493, and 354C of the IPC would not automatically absolve the Appellant of liability under Section 506 of the IPC because each offence contains distinct ingredients requiring separate scrutiny. The Court emphasised that while allegations of rape or voyeurism may fail for want of proof, a threat intended to alarm, intimidate, or compel a woman to act against her wishes can still independently constitute criminal intimidation. The Bench further observed that facts emerging from a private intimate relationship may separately sustain criminal liability if the foundational ingredients of a particular offence stand independently established.
The Court observed that the concept of “unchastity” under criminal law can no longer be understood through outdated patriarchal notions centred only around sexual virtue or morality. The Bench emphasised that constitutional jurisprudence has fundamentally transformed the understanding of women’s dignity, privacy, and sexual autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution. Referring to Joseph Shine v. Union of India and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Court held that chastity must be understood from the standpoint of a woman’s autonomy over her sexual choices, personal dignity, and control over the dissemination of intimate information. The Court further observed that any unauthorised interference with a woman’s sexual autonomy or privacy, particularly through the circulation of intimate material, directly attacks her dignity and therefore falls within the scope of imputing “unchastity” under Part II of Section 506 of the IPC.
The Bench held that threatening to upload a woman’s bathing video on social media constitutes a serious assault on her dignity, privacy, and reputation in the digital age. The Court observed that even if the alleged video did not depict a conventional sexual act, recording a woman in a naked state creates heightened vulnerability because such material can easily be manipulated, circulated, and sexualised online beyond the control of the victim. The Bench emphasised that a woman has a legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy while disrobing in a bathroom, and any threat to publicly circulate such content would naturally create fear, humiliation, embarrassment, and alarm. The Court therefore concluded that threatening publication of such private content squarely amounts to criminal intimidation involving imputation of unchastity within the meaning of Section 506 of the IPC.
The Court observed that non-recovery of the mobile phone or alleged videography was not fatal to the prosecution's case so long as credible oral evidence established the existence of the threat beyond a reasonable doubt. The Bench reiterated the settled principle that recovery of an article of crime is not a sine qua non for conviction where reliable testimonial evidence exists on record. The Court found the evidence of the prosecutrix trustworthy and sufficiently corroborated by her sisters, particularly because incidents occurring within an intimate relationship ordinarily remain confined to the private sphere of the parties involved. The Bench further invoked Sections 106 and 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, holding that facts arising within such private interpersonal relationships often remain within the especial knowledge of the individuals concerned and can therefore be inferred from surrounding circumstances and natural human conduct.
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Apex Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the Appellant under Part II of Section 506 of the IPC while reducing the sentence to the period already undergone, considering the lapse of time since the incident. The Court reaffirmed that threats to circulate a woman’s intimate or nude images online amount to criminal intimidation involving “imputing unchastity” within the meaning of Section 506 of the IPC, and clarified that the concept of chastity must now be understood through the constitutional lens of dignity, privacy, autonomy, and control over one’s sexual identity rather than traditional patriarchal morality.
Case Title: Vijayakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2859 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol
Advocate for the Petitioner: AOR M.P. Parthiban
Advocate for the Respondent: AOR Sabarish Subramanian
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
