Mr. Counsel, the Trial Court acquitted your client of rape because it found that the relationship was consensual. But does that automatically mean that the threat to upload a video was also false? A woman in a consensual relationship can still be threatened. Why should one acquittal lead to the other?

My Lord, the prosecution's case on the threat is built on the same foundational facts as the rape charge — the relationship, the alleged incident of recording, the break-up. If the prosecutrix has been found to be unreliable on the core allegation of rape, her testimony on the derivative allegation of threat is equally unreliable. She has a motive to falsely implicate the appellant because he refused to marry her. The Trial Court found that the sexual relationship was consensual, which means she was not an unwilling participant. If she was willing to have sex, why would she be unwilling to be recorded? The entire narrative is inconsistent. The acquittal for rape does not automatically lead to acquittal for criminal intimidation, but it certainly casts serious doubt on the credibility of the prosecutrix. When the star witness is disbelieved on one major charge, the court must scrutinise her testimony on other charges with greater care. Here, the courts below failed to do so.

The video was never recovered. But does non-recovery automatically mean the threat did not exist? The prosecutrix testified that the appellant told her he had the video. She believed him. Her sisters testified that she was distressed and mentioned the threat. Why is that insufficient?

My Lord, the prosecution must prove the existence of the threat beyond reasonable doubt. Here, the only evidence is the word of the prosecutrix. There is no forensic evidence, no digital evidence, no witness who saw the video. The sisters of the prosecutrix are hearsay witnesses — they only heard about the video from her. This Court has consistently held that hearsay evidence is not admissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In Goverdhan, this Court held that non-recovery is not fatal only when there are direct reliable witnesses. Here, there are no direct witnesses to the video. The prosecutrix may have believed the video existed, but belief is not proof. The prosecution has failed to prove the foundational fact that such a video was ever recorded. Without that, the threat to upload a non-existent video cannot constitute criminal intimidation.

Your client was given an opportunity under Section 313 CrPC to explain the incriminating circumstances. He merely said 'false evidence' and declined to lead any defence evidence. Could he not have offered an explanation?

My Lord, the appellant is not required to prove his innocence. The burden of proof remains on the prosecution throughout. Section 313 CrPC gives the accused an opportunity to explain, but the accused is entitled to maintain silence. No adverse inference can be drawn from the fact that the accused did not offer an explanation. Moreover, the incriminating circumstances put to him were themselves based on the unreliable testimony of the prosecutrix. He denied them as false. That is sufficient. The prosecution cannot shift the burden to the accused to disprove allegations that it has failed to prove in the first place.

The Court has redefined 'unchastity' in light of Article 21, holding that the threat to publish private images violates dignity and privacy. Do you challenge that interpretation?

My Lord, the appellant does not challenge the interpretation of 'unchastity' as a general proposition. The issue is whether the threat was made at all. Even if the threat to publish private images imputes unchastity, the prosecution must first prove that the threat was made. Here, the prosecution has failed to prove that any video existed or that the appellant threatened to upload it. The redefinition of unchastity does not relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the foundational facts. The appellant is not arguing that the threat, if proved, would not constitute an offence. He is arguing that the threat was not proved.

For PetitionerCriminal Premium

No Video Recovered, Acquittal for Rape Must Lead to Acquittal for Criminal Intimidation — (2026) INSC 525

The appellant was acquitted of all charges including rape, voyeurism, and deceitful sexual intercourse. The alleged video was never recovered.

Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu — (2026) INSC 525

Core Argument

The appellant was acquitted of all charges including rape, voyeurism, and deceitful sexual intercourse. The alleged video was never recovered. The prosecutrix's testimony is uncorroborated and unreliable. Without the video, the threat cannot be proved. The conviction under Section 506 IPC must be set aside.

Key Precedents

Goverdhan v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) 3 SCC 378 — Held that non-recovery of weapon is not fatal only if there are direct reliable witnesses; here, there are no witnesses to the video itself.
Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer (1956) 1 SCC 337 — Held that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its primary burden; it can be invoked only after a prima facie case is made out.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorPaid Plans Only

BENCH QUESTION

What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?

OPPOSITION COUNTER

The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...

Unlock the Argument Simulator

4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.

Available on Monthly, Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans.

Subscribe to Unlock →

Simulated Content — Not Legal Advice: This courtroom argument and all associated bench questions, judicial responses, and simulator outputs are entirely simulated and hypothetical, created for educational and professional training purposes only. They do not represent actual court proceedings, real judicial opinions, or the positions of any judge or party. Do not cite or use this content in any court, tribunal, or legal proceeding without independent verification and adaptation by a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in