Non-recovery of incriminating digital material is not fatal where oral testimony regarding criminal intimidation is credible.

The Appellant and the prosecutrix (PW-1) were in a consensual romantic and physical relationship for approximately two years

The prosecutrix alleged that the Appellant recorded a video of her bathing without her knowledge and subsequently threatened to upload it to Facebook to prevent her from contacting him or seeking marriage

Following a complaint, the Appellant was charged under Sections 376, 493, 354C, and 506 Part II of the IPC

The Trial Court acquitted him of rape and voyeurism (Sections 376, 493, 354C) citing the consensual nature of the relationship and non-recovery of the video, but convicted him under Section 506 Part II for criminal intimidation

The High Court of Madras upheld this conviction

The Appellant challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court, arguing that the acquittal under Section 354C and the non-recovery of the mobile phone/video invalidated the charge of intimidation

The Court applied Section 503 of the IPC, which defines criminal intimidation as threatening injury to reputation with intent to cause alarm

It invoked Section 506 Part II IPC, providing enhanced punishment if the threat is to "impute unchastity to a woman"

The Court relied on Section 106 of the Evidence Act regarding facts "especially within the knowledge" of a person

The Court relied on Section 114 regarding presumptions of human conduct

It further integrated the constitutional principles of privacy and dignity under Article 21 as elucidated in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India and Joseph Shine v. Union of India to interpret "unchastity" as an interference with sexual autonomy and privacy

The Court reasoned that "unchastity" must be re-interpreted beyond antiquated moralist definitions to encompass violations of a woman's sexual autonomy, privacy, and dignity

It held that threatening to publish a video of a woman bathing—regardless of her sexual history—is an assault on her dignity and constitutes "imputing unchastity"

Regarding the lack of physical evidence (the video), the Court held that non-recovery is not fatal if testimonial evidence is credible

The Court applied Section 106 of the Evidence Act, noting that because the incidents occurred within a private interpersonal relationship, the truth of the threat was within the "especial knowledge" of the Appellant

Since the Appellant failed to provide a plausible alternative version during his Section 313 CrPC examination—offering only bare denials—the Court drew a reasonable inference in favor of the prosecutrix’s consistent testimony

The Court found the prosecutrix’s testimony reliable as it remained unimpeached during cross-examination and was corroborated by her sisters

The Court clarified that the victim’s genuine alarm and the Appellant’s intent to silence her through the threat were sufficient for conviction, even without the physical recovery of the digital material

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction, but modified the sentence to the period of custody already undergone by the Appellant