Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police (2026) INSC 525

The appellant (Vijayakumar) and the prosecutrix (PW-1) were in a romantic and physical relationship for approximately two years, beginning around 2013.

The prosecutrix alleged that the appellant recorded a video of her while she was taking a bath at her sister’s house without her knowledge.

After their relationship deteriorated and the appellant refused to marry her, he allegedly threatened to upload this bathing video to social media (Facebook) if she married anyone else or continued to contact him.

The appellant was charged under Sections 376 (rape), 493 (deceitful belief of marriage), 354C (voyeurism), and Part II of Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.

The Trial Court acquitted the appellant of rape, deceit, and voyeurism, finding the relationship to be consensual. However, he was convicted under Section 506 Part II IPC for criminal intimidation, a decision later upheld by the Madras High Court.

Independence of Charges: The Court clarified that an acquittal in one charge (like rape or voyeurism) does not necessitate an acquittal in another (criminal intimidation) if the latter’s specific ingredients are independently proven.

Redefining “Unchastity”: The Court evolved the legal understanding of “unchastity” from a purely moralistic viewpoint to one centered on privacy, dignity, and sexual autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution. It ruled that threatening to release a nude video violates a woman’s sexual autonomy and dignity, thereby constituting a threat to impute unchastity under Section 506 IPC.

Non-Recovery of Evidence: The Court held that the failure of the police to recover the mobile phone or the video was not fatal to the case. It emphasized that if testimonial evidence (the prosecutrix’s statement) is credible, the object of the crime does not necessarily have to be produced.

Assessment of Testimony: The Court found the prosecutrix’s testimony natural and reliable. Her account was corroborated by her sisters (PW-5 and PW-10) and sister-in-law (PW-7), who witnessed her distress and heard her nervous phone conversations.

Burden of Proof (Section 106, Evidence Act): Because the incidents occurred within an intimate, private relationship, they were within the “especial knowledge” of the parties. The Court noted that the appellant offered no alternative explanation during his Section 313 CrPC examination, merely stating the evidence was false.