Threatening to Upload a Woman’s Private Bathing Video Is Criminal Intimidation Even if the Video Is Not Recovered

Held: The Supreme Court held that threatening to upload a woman’s private bathing video on social media amounts to criminal intimidation under Sections 503 and 506 IPC, as such a threat injures her reputation, dignity, privacy and sexual autonomy, and may amount to a threat to impute unchastity within the meaning of Part II of Section 506 IPC. The Court clarified that acquittal on charges of rape, deceitful inducement of lawful marriage or voyeurism does not automatically defeat a separate conviction for criminal intimidation, because each offence must be examined independently on its own ingredients. The Court further held that non-recovery of the mobile phone or video is not necessarily fatal where credible oral evidence proves the existence of the threat beyond reasonable doubt.

Summary: The prosecutrix alleged that the appellant had entered into a sexual relationship with her on a promise of marriage and later threatened to upload a video of her bathing, allegedly recorded on his mobile phone, if she insisted on continuing the relationship or contacting him. The Trial Court acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 376, 493 and 354C IPC but convicted him under Part II of Section 506 IPC, holding that the threat to upload the private video was proved through the testimony of the prosecutrix and corroborating witnesses, including her sisters. The Madras High Court affirmed the conviction. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that once the connected charges had failed and no mobile phone or video had been recovered, the conviction for criminal intimidation could not survive. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that a threat to publish a woman’s private nude or bathing video in the digital sphere causes alarm, violates privacy, and attacks dignity and sexual autonomy. The Court also explained that “unchastity” must now be understood through the constitutional lens of dignity, privacy and autonomy, and not through outdated patriarchal notions of female morality.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant’s conviction under Section 503 IPC punishable under Section 506 IPC, holding that the prosecution had proved the criminal intimidation charge beyond reasonable doubt despite non-recovery of the alleged mobile phone or video. However, considering the peculiar facts of the case and that the incident dated back to 2015, the Court reduced the sentence to the period of custody already undergone. Since the appellant had already been released on bail during the pendency of the appeal, his bail bond and surety were discharged.