‘Chastity not about morals’: Why Supreme Court upheld conviction of man threatening to leak woman’s bathing video

“Chastity is not to be seen from the narrow perspective of sexual behaviour cloistered by traditional moral values only, but also from the vantage point of dignity and autonomy associated with the sexual autonomy of a woman,” the bench said on May 22, in the verdict authored by Justice N Kotiswar Singh, expanding the interpretation of “unchastity” in the context of digital privacy and sexual autonomy.

ustices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh of the Supreme Court said that chastity of a woman should be understood as a person’s control over their own sexual choices, in light of freedom of self-determination. (Image enhanced using AI)

‘Chastity’ based on ‘inner self-determination’

• Chastity, accordingly, is not to be considered purely from a moral perspective focused on virtue alone.
• It has to be seen from the prism of dignity and autonomy of the individual woman to decide her sexual preferences and habits, and empowering her to reprobate what is not desirable and approbate what is acceptable to her.
• This autonomy to decide what is acceptable or not is to be based on inner self-determination and not dictated by external societal norms, which had been the determining factor for centuries.
• Chastity, thus, has to be determined not only by societal values but also based on her individual sensitivities as regards her sexuality.

• Chastity of a woman should be understood as a person’s control over their own sexual choices, in light of freedom of self-determination.
• It is the ability to determine one’s own sexual choices and one’s own sexual relationships without interference from another.
• It would encompass the ability to freely decide who to establish a sexual relationship with on their own terms without any undue pressure or interference.
• Any such reprehensible act which seeks to lower or tarnish the dignity of a woman relating to her sexual autonomy and identity, which she seeks to jealously guard, can be said to be an assault on her chastity, amounting to imputing unchastity to the woman.

Background

According to the prosecution, the complainant and the appellant had been in a relationship for nearly two years after becoming acquainted in 2013.

The woman alleged that the appellant repeatedly assured her that he would marry her and that they had a physical relationship during this period.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant secretly recorded the woman while she was bathing by leaving his mobile phone camera switched on in the bathroom.

The complainant claimed that the appellant later admitted to recording the bathing scene and assured her that he would delete the footage.

According to the complaint, the relationship later deteriorated when the woman began receiving marriage proposals from elsewhere.

She alleged that the appellant threatened to upload the bathing video on Facebook if she insisted on marriage or continued contacting him.

The prosecution also alleged that the appellant tied a yellow thread around her neck at a temple and claimed they were married, but later pressured her to remove it and destroy their photographs together.

‘Unchastity’, an action interfering with privacy, autonomy

• ‘Unchastity’ should then be read also as an action that interferes with the privacy and autonomy of one’s own consensual sexual activities.
• Any such interference would be a violation of the constitutional understanding of both privacy and dignity under Article 21.
• Any unwarranted interference with such sexual autonomy can be said to impute unchastity, insofar as it prevents the affected person from controlling the information and choices that she chooses to make with respect to her sexual life.
• Such a reading protects the dignity of all persons, regardless of their sexual history.

‘Dignity’ in online era

• In the age of the internet, the dignity of a person is intrinsically tied to their person and reputation as perceived online.
• Any private content circulated online with intent to negatively impact their reputation can be understood to cause harm to one’s reputation.
• It also causes harm to their person by directly violating one’s privacy, which is a recognised and protected right.
• Mere threat that the appellant would upload the video of the prosecutrix in a nude state on social media is quite a distressing and frightening proposition for a woman.

• If acute shame, distress, and embarrassment are visited upon a woman due to fear that her nude picture would be displayed to the public, there can be no doubt that such an act would certainly be a cause for alarm.
• Any private content circulated online with the intent to negatively impact their reputation can be understood to cause harm to one’s reputation.
• It also causes harm to their person by directly violating one’s privacy, which is a recognised and protected right.

Trial court acquitted him of rape charges

The trial court acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 376 (rape), 493 (Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage) and 354C (voyeurism) IPC, holding that the relationship between the parties was consensual and long-standing.

It found that the prosecution failed to prove that consent for sexual intercourse was obtained solely on a false promise of marriage.

However, the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 506 Part II IPC after accepting the testimony of the prosecutrix and corroborative statements made by her sisters regarding the threats to upload the video online.

The Madras High Court later affirmed the conviction.

Supreme Court rejects appellant’s argument

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that once he had been acquitted of rape and voyeurism charges, the conviction for criminal intimidation could not independently survive.

He also argued that the alleged video and mobile phone had never been recovered during the investigation.

Rejecting the contention, the Supreme Court held that each criminal charge must be independently examined and acquittal on one allegation does not automatically wipe out liability for another offence arising from the same set of facts.

“As such, if the evidence in respect of an offence is separable and can exist on its own, and if proved, the accused can certainly be fastened with criminal liability in respect of such offence,” the Supreme Court said.

The Supreme Court further noted that even in consensual relationships, no woman can be presumed to consent to the publication or circulation of intimate material.

“It would be very difficult to contemplate that a woman, even in a consensual relationship, would consent to or condone any act by her partner of releasing images of a very private act in the public domain,” the Supreme Court said.

Non-recovery of video not fatal to prosecution

The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that failure to recover the alleged video or mobile phone was fatal to the prosecution’s case.

The Supreme Court held that recovery of material objects is not always necessary where reliable oral evidence exists.

The Supreme Court said that the prosecutrix genuinely believed that the video existed because of her intimate relationship with the appellant and his repeated threats to upload it online.

“In our opinion, the genuine perception of the prosecutrix that such a video exists and that the appellant threatened to upload in social media would constitute key ingredients for the purpose of invoking Section 503 IPC,” the court held.

At the same time, the court criticised the investigating officer for failing to recover the alleged digital evidence and said such lapses reflected poorly on the quality of investigation in cyber-related offences.

Court on criminal intimidation

Explaining the offence of criminal intimidation under Sections 503 (criminal intimidation) and 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation) IPC, the Supreme Court said the relevant question is whether the threat was capable of causing alarm in the mind of the victim.

“The mere threat that the appellant would upload the video of the prosecutrix in a nude state on social media is quite a distressing and frightening proposition for a woman,” the court said.

The Supreme Court concluded that the testimony of the prosecutrix remained consistent and credible throughout the proceedings and that there was no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial court and the high court.

Sentence reduced

While upholding the conviction, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant, noting that the incident dated back to 2015 and considering the peculiar facts of the case.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed with modification in sentence.