The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a Tamil Nadu man for criminal intimidation after finding that threatening to upload a woman’s private bathing video on social media amounts to an attack on her dignity, privacy, and sexual autonomy. The Court said such conduct can amount to “imputing unchastity” under Section 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a complaint lodged by a woman in 2015 alleging that the accused had maintained a relationship with her on the promise of marriage and later threatened to upload a video allegedly recorded while she was bathing. She claimed the accused used the threat to stop her from contacting him and to pressure her after their relationship deteriorated.
The trial court acquitted the accused of charges under Sections 376, 493, and 354C IPC, but convicted him under Section 506 Part II IPC for criminal intimidation. The Madras High Court later upheld that conviction.
The accused then approached the Supreme Court arguing that since the other serious charges had failed, the conviction for criminal intimidation could not survive independently. He also argued that the alleged video and mobile phone were never recovered during investigation.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh rejected the argument that acquittal in related offences automatically wipes out a charge of criminal intimidation.
The Court observed that,
“Each offence has to be examined independently,” and noted that even where allegations arise from the same relationship, separate offences may still stand on their own evidence.
The judgment contains an extensive discussion on privacy, dignity, and women’s autonomy in the digital age. The Bench noted that threatening to release intimate material online can seriously damage a woman’s reputation and personal dignity.
“The dignity of a person is intrinsically tied to their person and reputation as perceived online,” the Court observed while discussing how private content shared without consent can violate constitutional protections under Article 21.
The Court further said that chastity should not be viewed only through “traditional moral values” but also through the lens of privacy, autonomy, and the right of a woman to control her own sexual identity and personal information.
Addressing the defence argument regarding non-recovery of the alleged video, the Supreme Court held that absence of the electronic material does not automatically destroy the prosecution case if other reliable evidence exists.
The Bench noted that the prosecutrix’s testimony was corroborated by statements of her sisters and another witness who had heard her distressed conversations regarding the threat.
The Court added that in intimate relationships, many interactions occur in private spaces where independent witnesses may not be available. In such circumstances, the Court said surrounding facts and conduct can still be examined to assess credibility.
Holding that the prosecution had successfully proved the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 Part II IPC, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.
Case Details
Case Title: Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2859 of 2025
Judge: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
Decision Date: May 22, 2026
