Threatening to upload woman's private video amounts to criminal intimidation: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently upheld the conviction of a man for criminal intimidation after he threatened to upload a woman’s bathing video on Facebook if she continued asking him to marry her [Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu].

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and NK Singh held that threatening to publish intimate visuals of a woman online amounts to imputing unchastity under Part II of Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

“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,” the Court said.

It further said that non-recovery of the video or the device from which it was taken,is not enough to set aside a conviction for criminal intimidation.

"Law does not mandate that recovery of an article of crime is sine qua non for conviction of an offence,” the Bench observed.

The Court added that what mattered was whether the woman genuinely believed such a video existed and whether the threat caused alarm and distress.

“In the present case, the mere threat that the appellant would upload the video of the prosecutrix in a nude state on social media is quite a distressing and frightening proposition for a woman,” it said.

The case arose from a complaint lodged in 2015 by a woman who alleged that the accused, with whom she had been in a relationship for nearly two years, secretly recorded her while she was bathing and later threatened to circulate the video online.

According to the prosecution, the accused initially promised to marry her but later backed out and threatened to upload the bathing video if she insisted on continuing the relationship.

A trial court acquitted the accused of rape, deceitful inducement of marriage and voyeurism charges, holding that the relationship was consensual. However, it convicted him under Part II of Section 506 IPC for criminal intimidation. The Madras High Court later upheld the conviction.

The accused man then approached the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the accused argued that his conviction for criminal intimidation would not survive since the courts below had acquitted him of the other charges. He also argued that the prosecution had failed to recover the mobile phone or the alleged video recording.

Rejecting the contention, the Supreme Court held that criminal intimidation was a distinct offence and could independently stand proved.

It also held that non-recovery of the mobile phone or video was not fatal to the prosecution's case.

It ultimately upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period of jail time already undergone, noting that the incident dated back to 2015.

The Court also commented on how the concept of ‘unchastity’ must be understood in the context of dignity, privacy and sexual autonomy in the digital age.

The Bench said chastity could no longer be viewed only through traditional notions of sexual morality.

“Chastity, thus, has to be determined not only by societal values but also based on her individual sensitivities as regards her sexuality,” the judgment said.

It stressed that dignity and privacy in the digital age are closely tied to a person’s control over intimate information and online reputation.

The Bench further observed that a woman’s autonomy includes her right to decide what remains private.

“Any unwarranted interference with such sexual autonomy can be said to impute unchastity,” the Court said.

The appellant was represented by Advocate MP Parthiban.

The State was represented by Advocate Sabarish Subramanian.

[Read Judgement]