Court holds that threatening to upload a woman’s private bathing video amounts to imputing “unchastity” under Part II of Section 506 IPC and violates dignity, privacy and sexual autonomy
Here is the rewritten article with improved readability — shorter sentences and active voice throughout:
Supreme Court: Threatening to Upload Bathing Video Amounts to Criminal Intimidation
The Supreme Court ruled that threatening to upload a woman’s bathing video on social media amounts to criminal intimidation. The Court applied Part II of Section 506 IPC and significantly expanded the meaning of “unchastity” — now covering women’s dignity, privacy, and sexual autonomy.
The Judgment
Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh delivered the ruling in Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Appeal No. 2859 of 2025). The Court affirmed the appellant’s conviction under Part II of Section 506 IPC.
The Court heard an appeal against the Madras High Court’s February 28, 2024 judgment. The High Court had upheld the Sessions Judge’s conviction. The Fast Track Mahila Court in Villupuram sentenced the appellant to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and fined him Rs. 3,000.
Allegations Against the Appellant
The prosecutrix alleged that the appellant established a sexual relationship with her on a false promise of marriage. He also threatened to upload a video on social media — one he allegedly recorded while she bathed. Charges were filed under Sections 376, 493, 354C, and Part II of Section 506 IPC.
The Trial Court acquitted him under Sections 376, 493, and 354C IPC. However, it convicted him under Part II of Section 506 IPC. The High Court later affirmed this conviction.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant raised two arguments:
- The acquittal under Sections 376, 493, and 354C should nullify the Section 506 conviction.
- Investigators never recovered the mobile phone or video, so criminal intimidation could not stand.
Court: Each Criminal Charge Stands Independently
The Supreme Court rejected both arguments. It held that courts must examine each criminal charge independently.
When multiple offences arise from the same transaction, acquittal in some does not guarantee acquittal in others. Each offence’s ingredients must be independently established.
The Bench drew a key distinction:
- Rape or deceitful marriage charges concern sexual acts.
- Threatening to circulate intimate images directly attacks a woman’s dignity and privacy.
These two offences occupy entirely different legal ground.
Court Expands the Meaning of “Unchastity”
Traditionally, courts linked unchastity only to a woman’s sexual conduct. But landmark constitutional judgments changed this view. Cases like Joseph Shine v. Union of India, Pawan Kumar v. State of H.P., K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, and Charu Khurana v. Union of India reshaped the jurisprudence.
The Bench held that chastity must no longer reflect traditional morality alone. Courts must now view it through the lens of dignity, privacy, autonomy, and sexual self-determination.
Any interference with a woman’s autonomy over intimate matters amounts to imputing unchastity. It strips her of control over information about her own sexual life.
In the digital age, threatening to upload intimate content online directly attacks a person’s dignity and reputation. The Court further held:
The Bench concluded that recording a woman while she bathes and threatening to upload the footage online amounts to imputing unchastity under Part II of Section 506 IPC.
Criminal Intimidation and Alarm
The offence stands established when someone issues a threat intending to cause alarm or compel a person to act or refrain from acting.
A threat to upload a nude video online naturally causes acute shame, distress, and embarrassment. The Bench found this clearly qualifies as “alarm” under Section 503 IPC.
The Court also clarified that the threat need not be executed for criminal intimidation to apply. Two things matter:
- Whether the accused issued the threat
- Whether the victim genuinely believed it was real
Non-Recovery of Phone Not Fatal
The Supreme Court addressed the non-recovery argument directly. Recovering a material object is not essential for conviction when reliable evidence exists.
Citing Goverdhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Court held that non-recovery of a weapon or material object does not defeat a case when credible direct evidence is available.
The Bench accepted the prosecutrix’s testimony, corroborated by her sisters and surrounding circumstances, as sufficient proof of the threat.
The Court also discussed Sections 106 and 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. It held that incidents within intimate relationships often fall under the “especial knowledge” of the parties involved.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld both the Trial Court and the Madras High Court’s findings. It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the appellant’s conviction under Part II of Section 506 IPC.
The prosecution proved that the appellant threatened to upload the prosecutrix’s bathing video to intimidate and control her. This attracts the aggravated form of criminal intimidation punishable under Part II of Section 506 IPC.
