Vijayakumarv.State of Tamil Nadu

Legal Analysis: Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 INSC 525

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Date of Decision: May 22, 2026

Nature of Judgment: Criminal Appeal arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 2859 of 2025 against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 28.02.2024 in Crl. A. No. 325 of 2017.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellant was in a romantic and physical relationship with the prosecutrix for about two years. When the relationship soured and the prosecutrix insisted on marriage, the appellant allegedly threatened to upload on Facebook a video of her taking a bath, which he had secretly recorded. The Trial Court acquitted him of charges of rape (Section 376), cheating by inducement of marriage (Section 493), and voyeurism (Section 354C) but convicted him under Part II of Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation with threat to impute unchastity). The High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that: (i) even if the video was not recovered, the prosecutrix’s testimony, corroborated by her sisters, was credible; (ii) the threat to upload a nude video amounts to a threat to “impute unchastity” within the expanded understanding of unchastity as encompassing dignity, privacy, and sexual autonomy; (iii) the appellant failed to discharge his burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act regarding facts especially within his knowledge; (iv) the appellant’s studied silence and failure to offer an alternative version justified the conviction. However, considering the incident occurred in 2015, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 INSC 525

Criminal Appeal No.: 2859 of 2025

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Date of Decision: May 22, 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

Impugned Order: Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2024 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. A. No. 325 of 2017, confirming conviction under Part II of Section 506 IPC and sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 503 (definition of criminal intimidation), Section 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation – Part II for threat to impute unchastity to a woman, punishable up to seven years), Section 376 (rape – acquitted), Section 493 (cohabitation by deceitful inducement of belief of lawful marriage – acquitted), Section 354C (voyeurism – acquitted).

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 (burden of proving fact especially within knowledge of accused), Section 114 (court may presume existence of facts in common course of natural events), Section 145 (contradicting witness by previous writing), Section 155 (impeaching credit of witness).

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 162 (statements to police – use for contradiction), Section 313 (examination of accused), Section 280 (demeanour of witness).

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 (right to privacy and dignity), Article 136 (special leave to appeal).

Key Precedents Cited and Applied

• Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39 – Section 497 IPC (adultery) struck down; patriarchy and anachronistic conceptions of chastity deprive women of dignity and privacy.

• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 – Right to privacy includes autonomy over fundamental personal choices and control over dissemination of personal information; dignity encompasses the right to develop to full potential.

• Pawan Kumar v. State of H.P. (2017) 7 SCC 780 – Right to live with dignity under Article 21 cannot be violated by obnoxious acts; woman has absolute right to choose or reject a relationship.

• Charu Khurana v. Union of India (2015) 1 SCC 192 – Dignity is the quintessential quality of a personality.

• Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, 1957 AIR(SC) 614 – Oral testimony classified into wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, or neither; third category requires careful scrutiny.

• Sohrab v. State of M.P. (1972) 3 SCC 751 – Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule; a witness may be credible in part even if not fully reliable.

• Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer (1956) 1 SCC 337 – Section 106 Evidence Act applies to facts especially within knowledge of accused, not to relieve prosecution of primary burden.

• Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 1012 – Procedure for contradiction under Section 162 CrPC read with Section 145 Evidence Act.

• Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra (2023) 13 SCC 365 – Suggestions made to witness and replies have evidentiary value.

• Paramjeet Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2010) 10 SCC 439 – Section 313 CrPC is mandatory; incriminating circumstances must be put to accused.

• Goverdhan v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) 3 SCC 378 – Non‑recovery of weapon of crime is not fatal if there are direct reliable witnesses.

• Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai (2003) 12 SCC 395 – Reasonable doubt must be actual and substantial, not imaginary or trivial.

3. Relevant Facts

The prosecutrix (PW1) and the appellant developed a romantic relationship starting in 2013. She helped him with studies and they frequently interacted. The appellant expressed love for her, but she initially hesitated due to religious differences. Over time, they had a physical relationship on several occasions. The prosecutrix alleged that on one occasion, the appellant left his mobile phone with the camera switched on in the bathroom while she was bathing, thereby recording her in a nude or semi‑nude state. After two days, he told her about the recording and assured her he would delete it, but later used it as a threat.

The appellant secured a job in the Police Department towards the end of 2013 and left for training. The prosecutrix supported him financially. In 2014, when her family began seeking marriage proposals for her, she informed the appellant. He came to her place on 08.04.2015 and told her that if she married anyone else, he would upload the bathing video on Facebook. On another occasion, he took her to a temple, tied a yellow rope as a Mangalsutra, and had sex with her, but later asked her to remove it and insisted that she not contact him. When she disclosed that her menstruation had stopped, he asked her to terminate the pregnancy. He warned her that if she did not tear off their photos and remove the Mangalsutra, he would upload the video.

After failed attempts to resolve the matter through intermediaries, the prosecutrix lodged a complaint on 10.08.2015. The appellant was charged under Sections 376, 493, 354C, and Part II of 506 IPC.

The Trial Court acquitted him of all charges except criminal intimidation, holding that the sexual relationship was consensual. The High Court affirmed the conviction under Section 506 Part II. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that without recovery of the mobile phone or video, the charge could not be sustained.

4. Issues

Issue No. 1: Whether the threat to upload a video of the prosecutrix taking a bath amounts to a threat to “impute unchastity” within the meaning of Part II of Section 506 IPC.

Issue No. 2: Whether the conviction under Section 506 Part II can be sustained in the absence of recovery of the alleged video or mobile phone.

Issue No. 3: Whether the prosecutrix’s testimony, uncorroborated by recovery of the video, is sufficient to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue No. 4: Whether the appellant’s studied silence and failure to offer an alternative version, despite having special knowledge of the facts under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, justifies the conviction.

Issue No. 5: Whether the sentence should be reduced.

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. “Imputing unchastity” must be understood in light of dignity, privacy, and sexual autonomy (Paras 29-41).

The Court held that chastity is not to be viewed from a narrow, traditional moral perspective focused on sexual virtue alone. Drawing from Joseph Shine and K.S. Puttaswamy, the Court observed that society has historically imposed impossible virtues on women, depriving them of dignity and privacy. Chastity must be understood as a person’s control over their own sexual choices – the ability to determine one’s own sexual relationships without interference. Any interference with a woman’s sexual autonomy, including the threat to publish a nude video taken without consent, amounts to imputing unchastity. Such an act violates her privacy, undermines her dignity, and insults her sexual character. Therefore, the threat to upload the video squarely falls within the ambit of Part II of Section 506 IPC.

B. Non‑recovery of the video is not fatal (Paras 44-54, 87-88).

The Court rejected the appellant’s contention that absence of recovery of the mobile phone or video was fatal. Relying on Goverdhan, it held that non‑recovery of an article of crime is not sine qua non for conviction if there is credible oral evidence. What matters is the prosecutrix’s genuine belief in the existence of the video, formed on the basis of her intimate relationship with the appellant and his statement to her. The appellant’s threat caused her alarm, and that is sufficient for criminal intimidation. The prosecution’s failure to recover the video may weaken the case but does not automatically lead to acquittal when other credible evidence exists.

C. The prosecutrix’s testimony was credible and corroborated (Paras 55-58, 82-93).

The Court assessed the prosecutrix’s testimony under the three categories in Vadivelu Thevar. While it may not be wholly reliable, it was not wholly unreliable either. Her evidence was natural, consistent, and corroborated by her sisters (PW5, PW7, PW10). The defence did not effectively impeach her credibility through cross‑examination under Section 145 Evidence Act or by invoking Section 155. No contradictions were drawn from her previous statement under Section 161 CrPC. The Trial Court had the advantage of observing her demeanour, and its finding was entitled to weight.

D. Section 106 of the Evidence Act shifts the burden on the appellant (Paras 59-68, 78-81).

The Court invoked Section 106 of the Evidence Act, holding that the facts relating to the recording of the video and the threat were especially within the knowledge of the appellant, as they occurred in the private realm of their intimate relationship. Once the prosecution established a prima facie case (the long‑standing physical relationship and the prosecutrix’s consistent testimony), the burden shifted to the appellant to offer an explanation. In his examination under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant merely replied “false evidence” to every incriminating circumstance and declined to lead any defence evidence. His studied silence, without proffering an alternative version, allowed the court to draw an adverse inference. The appellant missed the opportunity to create reasonable doubt.

E. The sentence was reduced to period already undergone (Paras 99-101).

Although the conviction was upheld, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone (the appellant had been released on bail during the appeal), considering that the incident occurred in 2015 and the appellant had already suffered the consequences of prolonged litigation.

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• The concept of “unchastity” under Part II of Section 506 IPC must be interpreted in light of the constitutional values of dignity, privacy, and sexual autonomy. Any act that interferes with a woman’s control over her own sexual choices, including the threat to publish nude images taken without consent, constitutes a threat to impute unchastity.

• In cases of criminal intimidation involving private acts within an intimate relationship, Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be invoked once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case. The accused, who has especial knowledge of what transpired, must offer an explanation; failure to do so can be used against him.

• Non‑recovery of an alleged video or recording does not automatically defeat a charge of criminal intimidation under Section 506 Part II, if the victim genuinely believed in its existence based on the accused’s own statements and the surrounding circumstances, and that belief caused her alarm.

• The principles of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) is not a rule of law; a witness may be credible in part even if not believed on other counts.

7. Court’s Examination and Analysis

The Court first affirmed that each charge must be examined independently; the acquittal under Sections 376, 493, and 354C did not automatically mandate acquittal under Section 506 Part II. The Court then expanded the interpretation of “unchastity” in the modern context, grounding it in constitutional rights to privacy and dignity. It held that the threat to upload a nude video is a grave violation that would reasonably cause alarm and damage reputation.

On the evidentiary challenge, the Court examined the prosecutrix’s testimony and found it natural and consistent. She had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant – their relationship was consensual for two years, and the breakdown of that relationship led to the threat. Her sisters corroborated her account. The defence failed to point out any contradiction with her previous statements. No Test Identification Parade or recovery was required for this offence because the crime was the threat itself, not the production of the video.

The Court analysed the cross‑examination and found that the defence merely suggested omissions from the complaint, not from the Section 161 statement. No attempt was made to contradict her under Section 145 Evidence Act. The appellant also did not lead any defence evidence. Under Section 106, once the prosecution established the intimate relationship and the fact that the appellant was the only other person present, the burden shifted to him to explain his version. His stock reply of “false evidence” was insufficient.

The Court also noted the lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer in not attempting to recover the mobile phone, but held that this did not vitiate the conviction.

Finally, considering the age of the case (2015) and that the appellant had already served a substantial part of the sentence, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone while upholding the conviction.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment is a progressive interpretation of “unchastity” that moves away from archaic, moralistic notions and aligns with constitutional values of dignity, privacy, and autonomy. It recognises that a woman’s sexual choices are her own, and any threat to expose her private moments is an attack on her chastity in the modern sense. The invocation of Section 106 of the Evidence Act in the context of intimate relationships is a significant development – it prevents an accused from hiding behind silence when only he can explain what happened. The judgment also correctly holds that non‑recovery of the recording is not fatal, as the offence of criminal intimidation is complete upon the issuance of the threat causing alarm.

Potential concerns: The judgment does not explicitly address whether the prosecutrix’s belief in the existence of the video was reasonable in the absence of any proof that the video was actually taken. However, given the long‑standing trust in the relationship and the appellant’s own admission that he had taken the video, the Court was justified in accepting her belief. Another concern is that the judgment might be used to extend the doctrine of “especial knowledge” too broadly – but the Court limited it to intimate relationships where facts are truly within the exclusive knowledge of the parties.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited in all cases involving criminal intimidation through threats to circulate intimate images or videos, even if the images are not recovered. It expands the interpretation of “unchastity” to include violations of privacy and dignity. It also empowers courts to draw adverse inferences under Section 106 when the accused fails to explain his conduct in an intimate relationship.

9. Final Outcome

The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, with modification of sentence.

• The conviction of the appellant under Part II of Section 506 IPC was upheld.

• The sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment was reduced to the period of custody already undergone by the appellant.

• The appellant was already on bail; his bail bonds were discharged.

• The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 28.02.2024 was confirmed.

• The appeal was dismissed accordingly.

10. Practical Application

For victims of criminal intimidation involving intimate images: Even if the images or videos are not recovered, you can still pursue a case under Section 506 Part II IPC if you can credibly testify about the threat and your genuine belief in its existence. Corroboration from family members or friends who witnessed your distress and the accused’s conduct strengthens the case. Document all communications. Approach the police promptly and ensure that your statement under Section 161 CrPC records all relevant details, including the threat and the context of the relationship.

For accused persons in similar cases: If you were in an intimate relationship with the complainant, do not assume that the prosecution must produce the video to prove the threat. Your conduct, the history of the relationship, and your failure to offer an alternative explanation under Section 313 CrPC can be used against you. Section 106 of the Evidence Act may shift the burden to you to explain what actually happened. A mere denial without any alternative version is unlikely to succeed. If you genuinely did not make such a threat, you must lead defence evidence, including your own testimony, to create reasonable doubt.

For prosecutors and investigating officers: In cases involving threats to circulate intimate images, prioritise the recovery of electronic devices. Obtain a search warrant and seize the accused’s mobile phone, computer, and cloud accounts. Request forensic analysis. However, if recovery is not possible, do not abandon the case – oral testimony of the victim, corroborated by her immediate disclosure to family members and her conduct (distress, complaints to police), may still suffice. Also, ensure that the victim’s statement under Section 161 CrPC is detailed and consistent.

For defence lawyers: Scrutinise the victim’s previous statements under Section 161 CrPC. If she did not mention the threat in her initial complaint, bring out that omission as a contradiction under Section 162 CrPC read with Section 145 Evidence Act. If the relationship was consensual and the parties had a falling out, argue that the threat was a product of spite, not genuine intimidation. If the video was never recovered, argue that the victim’s belief was unreasonable. Also, advise your client to actively participate in the Section 313 examination – a detailed explanation can create reasonable doubt.

For courts: When dealing with criminal intimidation under Section 506 Part II in the context of intimate relationships, recognise that “unchastity” has evolved to encompass dignity and privacy. The absence of the actual video is not fatal if the victim’s testimony is credible and the circumstances (long‑term relationship, the accused’s own statements, immediate disclosure to family) support her belief. Also, apply Section 106 of the Evidence Act – once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case about facts within the accused’s especial knowledge, require the accused to offer an explanation.

11. Court Lines

Line 1 (Expanded meaning of unchastity – Para 36-37):
“Chastity, accordingly, is not to be considered purely from a moral perspective focused on virtue alone; it has to be seen from the prism of dignity and autonomy of the individual woman to decide her sexual preferences and habits... 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.”

Line 2 (Threat to upload nude video as imputation – Para 41):
“Therefore, there can be no doubt that such a video as is alleged to exist and the making of a threat to upload it on Facebook would reasonably be considered to impute unchastity to the prosecutrix by publication, as it would amount to transgressing her sexual autonomy, undermining her dignity, invading her cherished privacy, and insulting her sexual character.”

Line 3 (Non‑recovery not fatal – Para 53):
“Law does not mandate that recovery of an article of crime is sine qua non for conviction of an offence, though production of the same would strengthen the prosecution case. Non‑recovery of the same will not be fatal to the prosecution case if there are other credible evidence to prove the existence of such object of crime/material, and it would depend on the peculiar facts obtaining in the case.”

Line 4 (Section 106 applies to intimate relationships – Para 62-63):
“Section 106 of the Evidence Act thus provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. In our opinion, 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.”

Line 5 (Accused’s studied silence – Para 80-81):
“Thus, when the prosecutrix made certain specific allegations against the appellant relating to a very private moment, which only the two of them could have known, it cast a legal obligation on the appellant under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to give his own version of the incident to throw a doubt on the version of the prosecutrix. If the appellant had done so, the Court would be faced with two possible scenarios, which would have rendered the version of the prosecutrix doubtful.”

Line 6 (Sentence reduction – Para 100):
“However, considering the peculiar facts of the case and also the fact that the incident happened in 2015, we are of the view that the interest of justice will be served if the sentence is reduced to the period of custody already undergone by the appellant.”

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For a victim (prosecutrix) in a similar case: As soon as you receive a threat to share intimate images, save all evidence – screenshots of messages, call recordings (if legally permissible), and notes of the conversation. Immediately disclose the threat to a trusted family member or friend; their testimony can corroborate your account. File a police complaint without delay. When you give your statement under Section 161 CrPC, provide as many details as possible about the relationship, the context, and the exact words used in the threat. If the accused had previously admitted to taking the video (e.g., “I have a video of you”), mention that explicitly. Do not worry if the police cannot recover the video – your credible testimony, especially if corroborated, can still lead to conviction under Section 506 Part II.

For an accused facing such a charge: If you genuinely did not make the threat, be proactive. In your Section 313 CrPC examination, provide a detailed explanation of what actually happened. Do not merely say “false”. Explain the nature of your relationship, whether there was any video, and if not, why the victim might have made the allegation. If possible, lead defence evidence – examine yourself as a witness (though you are not compellable), or bring witnesses who can testify to your character or to any motive the victim might have to falsely implicate you. Remember that Section 106 may shift the burden; silence can be fatal.

For a prosecutor: Build the case on the victim’s credibility. Immediately after the complaint, record a detailed Section 161 statement. Ensure that the victim mentions the accused’s admission of having taken the video (if any). Apply for a search warrant to seize the accused’s electronic devices. Even if the devices are not recovered or are wiped clean, argue that the threat itself constitutes the offence. Corroboration from family members who saw the victim distressed and heard her narrate the threat is valuable. At trial, ensure that the victim’s testimony is not shaken in cross‑examination; prepare her for likely defences (e.g., that the video never existed).

For a defence lawyer: First, examine the timeline of the complaint. If there was a significant delay, argue that the victim concocted the story after the relationship soured. Second, scrutinise the victim’s Section 161 statement. If she did not mention the threat in her first statement, bring out that omission as a contradiction under Section 162 CrPC. Third, if the accused admits the relationship but denies the threat, argue that in the absence of any video or admission, the victim’s belief was unreasonable. Fourth, if the relationship was long‑term and consensual, argue that the threat was a mere angry utterance without intention to cause alarm (though this is a weak defence). Finally, advise your client to exercise his right to examine himself as a defence witness if he has a credible alternative version.

For a trial court judge: When the prosecution relies solely on oral testimony for a Section 506 Part II charge, assess the credibility of the victim carefully. Consider the history of the relationship, the timing of the threat, and any corroboration from family members. If the accused was in an intimate relationship with the victim, apply Section 106 of the Evidence Act – put the incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 313 CrPC and draw an adverse inference if he offers only a bare denial. Do not insist on recovery of the video; the threat itself is the crime. However, if the victim’s testimony is inconsistent, exaggerated, or contradicted by contemporaneous evidence, acquit.

For a High Court or Supreme Court appellate court: When reviewing a conviction under Section 506 Part II where no video was recovered, examine whether the victim’s testimony was natural, consistent, and corroborated. If the lower courts have concurrently found her credible, interference is not warranted unless there is manifest error. Also, examine whether the accused was given a fair opportunity under Section 313 CrPC and whether the trial court correctly applied Section 106. If the accused offered a plausible alternative version (e.g., that the victim was blackmailing him), that would raise reasonable doubt. But a mere denial is insufficient.