A threat to publish a woman’s nude bathing video on social media amounts to threatening to “impute unchastity” under Part II of S.506 IPC, as it invades her sexual autonomy, dignity, and privacy.

on

Facts

The prosecutrix and the appellant were in a romantic relationship for about two years. The prosecution alleged that the appellant established sexual relations with her on a promise of marriage and secretly recorded her while she was bathing. Later, when disputes arose regarding marriage, the appellant allegedly threatened to upload the bathing video on Facebook if she continued contacting him or insisted on living with him as his wife.

The appellant was charged under S.376 IPC, S.493 IPC, S.354C IPC, and Part II of S.506 IPC. The Trial Court acquitted him of the offences under S.376, S.493 and S.354C IPC, holding that the relationship was consensual and that the alleged video was not recovered. However, he was convicted under Part II of S.506 IPC for criminal intimidation. The High Court affirmed the conviction.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that in absence of recovery of the mobile phone/video and in view of acquittal under the other offences, conviction under S.506 IPC could not survive.

Issues Framed

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the offence punishable under Part II of S.506 IPC. (Para 20)

Court’s Reasoning

(a) The Court held that each criminal charge must be examined independently. Acquittal under S.376 IPC, S.493 IPC, or S.354C IPC would not automatically negate liability under S.506 IPC, since “facts involved in a series of transactions, though related, may independently exist to provide the foundational ingredients for a distinct offence.” (Para 21)

(b) Interpreting “imputing unchastity” in Part II of S.506 IPC, the Court gave an expanded constitutional meaning rooted in dignity, privacy, and sexual autonomy under Art.21 Const. of India. Relying on Joseph Shine v. Union of India and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Court observed that chastity cannot be viewed merely through traditional morality, but through “autonomy over fundamental personal choices and control over dissemination of personal information.” (Paras 33–39)

(c) The Court held that recording a woman in a naked state while bathing and threatening to circulate it online would “transgress her sexual autonomy, undermine her dignity, invade her cherished privacy, and insult her sexual character.” Hence, such conduct squarely amounts to threatening to impute unchastity under Part II of S.506 IPC. (Paras 39–41)

(d) On the issue of non-recovery of the video/mobile phone, the Court held that recovery of the offending material is not sine qua non for conviction. Oral testimony, if credible, can sufficiently establish the offence. (Paras 52–54)

(e) The Court found the testimony of the prosecutrix reliable and materially corroborated by PW-5, PW-7 and PW-10. The Court also invoked principles under S.106 Evidence Act, observing that incidents occurring within an intimate relationship are often within the “especial knowledge” of the parties involved. (Paras 59–68)

(f) The Court noted that the defence failed to effectively contradict the prosecutrix under the mechanism contemplated by the proviso to S.162 CrPC read with S.145 Evidence Act. Mere suggestions in cross-examination were insufficient to discredit her testimony. (Paras 69–74)

Held

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Part II of S.506 IPC, holding that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant threatened to upload the prosecutrix’s bathing video on social media with intent to cause alarm and prevent her from continuing contact with him.

Ratio

A threat to publish or circulate a woman’s nude/private images or videos on social media constitutes a threat to “impute unchastity” within the meaning of Part II of S.506 IPC, as such conduct violates her dignity, privacy, and sexual autonomy protected under Art.21 Const. of India. (Paras 39–41)

Case Details

Citation: 2026 INSC 525
Decided on: 22 April 2026
Case Title: Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.