Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu

Background & Facts

The appellant and the prosecutrix were in a romantic and physical relationship for about two years. The prosecutrix alleged that the appellant had a sexual relationship with her on a false promise of marriage. She further alleged that the appellant recorded a video of her while she was taking a bath and later threatened to upload it on Facebook if she continued to contact him. The Trial Court acquitted the appellant of charges under Sections 376, 493, and 354C of the IPC, holding that the sexual relationship was consensual. However, the Trial Court convicted him under Part II of Section 506 of the IPC for criminal intimidation by threatening to impute unchastity. The High Court confirmed the conviction. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that since he was acquitted of the other charges, and since the video was never recovered, the conviction under Section 506 IPC could not stand.

Statutes Involved

• Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Punishes criminal intimidation; Part II imposes enhanced punishment (up to seven years) when the threat is to cause death, grievous hurt, destruction of property by fire, or to impute unchastity to a woman
• Section 503, Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Defines criminal intimidation as threatening another with injury to person, reputation, or property with intent to cause alarm, or to cause the person to do or omit to do any act
• Section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Punishes rape; the accused was acquitted of this charge
• Section 493, Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Punishes sexual intercourse by deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage; the accused was acquitted of this charge
• Section 354C, Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Punishes voyeurism (watching or capturing images of a woman engaged in private acts); the accused was acquitted of this charge
• Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him
• Section 114, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Allows the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events and human conduct
• Section 145, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Provides the manner of contradicting a witness by proof of former statement in writing
• Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Provides that statements made to police during investigation cannot be used for any purpose except to contradict a witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Evidence Act
• Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Provides for examination of the accused to explain incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence
• Article 21, Constitution of India — Guarantees right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to privacy, dignity, and autonomy over fundamental personal choices

Full Analysis

Cases Cited

• Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39 — Constitution Bench held that Section 497 IPC (adultery) is unconstitutional, rejecting the gendered approach to morality and affirming the sexual autonomy of women.
• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 — Constitution Bench recognised the fundamental right to privacy, holding that dignity encompasses autonomy over fundamental personal choices and control over dissemination of personal information.
• Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer (1956) 1 SCC 337 — Explained the scope of Section 106 of the Evidence Act: it applies to facts especially within the knowledge of the accused, but is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its primary burden.
• Anees v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 15 SCC 48 — Held that once foundational facts are established, the court may draw reasonable inferences under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, and the burden shifts to the accused under Section 106.
• Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 10 SCC 373 — Reiterated that Section 106 applies where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn, unless the accused offers an explanation.
• Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras 1957 AIR SC 614 — Classified oral testimony into three categories: wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, and neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable; courts must look for corroboration in the third category.
• Goverdhan v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) 3 SCC 378 — Held that non-recovery of the weapon of crime is not fatal to the prosecution case if there are direct reliable witnesses available.
• Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra (2023) 13 SCC 365 — Held that suggestions made to the witness by the defence counsel and the reply to such suggestions form part of the evidence and can be relied upon.
• Sohrab v. State of M.P. (1972) 3 SCC 751 — Held that the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule; a witness may be reliable in part even if not entirely reliable.
• Mekala Sivaiah v. State of A.P. (2022) 8 SCC 253 — Held that under Article 136, this Court does not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is manifest illegality or grave miscarriage of justice.

Courtroom Arguments