Supreme Court held that threatening to upload on social media a video showing a woman disrobing or bathing amounts to criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC Such threat is treated as imputing unchastity and criminal intimidation offence also
The Supreme Court held that threatening to upload on social media a video showing a woman disrobing or bathing amounts to a threat to impute unchastity, and therefore falls within the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh made this observation while affirming the conviction of a man under Part II of Section 506 IPC for threatening to post a woman’s private bathing video on Facebook.
The Bench said,
“We are of the opinion that in the light of the changed perspective of women’s sexuality, the act of video-recording the victim in a naked state while she was taking a bath and the threat to upload it on digital social media can be construed to be an act amounting to a threat to impute unchastity within the meaning of Part II of Section 506 IPC,”
The court further stated that the prosecution’s failure to recover the mobile phone or the actual video does not automatically invalidate a conviction under Section 506.
The Bench added,
“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,”
Explaining the reasoning, the Supreme Court noted that a person would have a legitimate expectation of privacy while disrobing in a bathroom. It observed that any publication of such images violates privacy and dignity and, as a result, “sullies” the individual’s chastity.
The court said,
“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, even though they may in a relationship for such relationship would not end on any right to bring in public domain,”
ALSO READ: Bombay High Court Reaffirms Principal’s Chamber as Public Place in Obscenity Case
According to the prosecution, the woman filed a complaint alleging that the accused entered into a sexual relationship with her on the promise of marriage, which later proved to be false.
She also alleged that he threatened to upload a video of her bathing on social media, claiming that he had recorded it.
After the investigation, the accused was charged with rape and sexual intercourse by deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage, along with criminal intimidation aimed at imputing unchastity to the woman. At trial, the court acquitted him of the rape-related charges but convicted him for criminal intimidation under Part II of Section 506 IPC, which deals with aggravated criminal intimidation.