2026 Supreme(SC) 573

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Vijayakumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Represented By The Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2859 of 2025
Decided On : 22-05-2026

A conviction for criminal intimidation can be sustained solely on credible oral testimony, even if the physical evidence used for the threat is not recovered, provided the threat to publish private imagery violates a victim's dignity, privacy, and sexual autonomy as understood in the modern constitutional context.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 503 and 506 - Criminal Intimidation - Aggravated form - Imputing unchastity - Meaning expanded to include violation of individual dignity, privacy, and sexual autonomy - Threat to publish private, nude imagery constitutes criminal intimidation under Part II of Section 506 IPC. (Paras 24, 25, 37, 40)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Burden of proof - Facts within special knowledge - When prosecution establishes foundational facts through credible evidence, burden shifts to the accused to provide explanation - Silence of accused in private/intimate matters can be considered. (Paras 63, 68, 85)

(C) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 and Section 145 - Presumption of facts and cross-examination - Non-recovery of material objects like mobile phones or electronic storage devices is not fatal to conviction if oral testimony of victim is found to be natural, consistent, and reliable. (Paras 53, 54, 76)

(D) Criminal Trial - Independent assessment of charges - Even if charges relating to other offences are not proven or result in acquittal, the court must examine whether the evidence independently supports a sustainable conviction for a distinct offence charged under the same framework. (Paras 21, 23)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for criminal intimidation following allegations that he recorded an intimate video of the victim while she was bathing and threatened to upload it on social media platforms if she continued to pursue the relationship. Although the trial court acquitted the appellant of other charges, including sexual offences, it upheld the conviction under the provision for criminal intimidation. The appellant challenged this on the grounds of non-recovery of the alleged electronic material and the fallout of the earlier acquittals.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the offence was committed by the threat to release private imagery, regardless of whether the device containing such content was recovered. The prosecutrix's testimony was found consistent, trustworthy, and corroborated by witnesses to whom she had disclosed the threat. The court affirmed that the conviction for criminal intimidation stands independently of the acquittal on other sexual charges.

Issues: The main issues were whether a conviction for criminal intimidation can be sustained in the absence of the recovery of the electronic evidence, whether the threat to publish nude imagery amounts to 'imputing unchastity' under Section 506 IPC, and whether the conviction survives despite acquittal for other charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The threat to disseminate naked images violates the victim's privacy and dignity, thereby constituting criminal intimidation. Non-recovery of a device is not fatal to the prosecution's case when the victim's oral deposition is found to be reliable, natural, and unimpeached during cross-examination. Each charge must be assessed independently, and failure on one count does not preclude the proof of another distinct offence.

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld with sentence modified to the period already undergone.