Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a criminal appeal challenging the conviction and sentence under Part II of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case arose from a complaint by a woman who alleged that the appellant, with whom she had a romantic relationship spanning about two years, had sexually exploited her on a false promise of marriage and threatened to upload a video recording of her bathing on social media. The appellant was charged with offences under Sections 376 (rape), 493 (sexual intercourse by deceitfully inducing belief of lawful marriage), 354C (voyeurism), and Part II of Section 506 (criminal intimidation). After trial, the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, Villupuram, acquitted the appellant of the rape, deceitful intercourse, and voyeurism charges, but convicted him under Section 506 Part II IPC and sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment and fine. The Trial Court found that the prosecutrix was a mature adult who had consented to the sexual relationship out of love and passion, and that the prosecution failed to prove that consent was obtained solely by a false promise of marriage. However, the Trial Court held that the threat to upload the bathing video was independently established. The High Court confirmed the conviction on appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that once the related charges of rape etc. were not proved, the conviction under Section 506 could not stand, especially since the mobile phone or video was never recovered. The Court held that the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 Part II IPC is distinct and can be sustained even when other charges fail, provided the threat is proved through credible evidence. The testimony of the prosecutrix, corroborated by her sisters and the Panchayat President, was found sufficient to establish the threat. The absence of recovery of the mobile phone or video did not vitiate the conviction. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Criminal Intimidation - Independence of charge under Section 506 IPC from other offences - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 506 Part II - Where accused is acquitted of rape and related charges, conviction under Section 506 for threatening to upload private video may still be sustainable if threat is independently proved - Trial Court and High Court held conviction valid despite no recovery of phone/video - Held that the appeal lacks merit; conviction and sentence upheld (Paras 16-17). B) Criminal Law - Proof of Threat - Evidentiary requirement under Section 506 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 506 Part II - The offence of criminal intimidation may be established through oral testimony and circumstances without recovery of the device used to record the threat - Testimony of prosecutrix and corroborating witnesses sufficient to prove threat to upload bathing video (Paras 16-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether conviction under Section 506 Part II IPC can be sustained when related charges of rape (Section 376), deceitful sexual intercourse (Section 493), and voyeurism (Section 354C) have failed, and in the absence of recovery of the alleged mobile phone or video recording
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence under Part II of Section 506 IPC (three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000/-).
Law Points
- Criminal intimidation under Part II of Section 506 IPC requires threat to cause alarm with intent to induce person to do or omit to do something
- Conviction under Section 506 IPC can sustain even if other related charges like rape are not proved
- if threat is independently established
- Absence of recovery of mobile phone or video recording does not necessarily vitiate conviction if there is other credible evidence
