LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 525Decided 22 May 2026
Crl.A. No.-002859-002859 - 2025
Justice Sanjay Karol · Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Background

The prosecutrix alleged the appellant had a sexual relationship with her on a false promise of marriage and threatened to upload a video of her bathing, which he had allegedly recorded. The Trial Court acquitted him of rape, deceitful inducement to a false belief of marriage, and the video-voyeurism charge, but convicted him under Part II of Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation) and sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The Madras High Court confirmed this conviction, and the appellant approached the Supreme Court arguing that since the related charges failed and the phone/video was never recovered, the intimidation conviction could not stand either.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the prosecutrix's testimony, along with the surrounding facts including the long relationship between the parties, was sufficient to sustain the conviction beyond reasonable doubt even without recovery of the phone or video. Applying the settled principle that concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and High Court are not to be disturbed absent manifest illegality or serious miscarriage of justice, the Court declined to interfere with the conviction. It did, however, criticise the Investigating Officer for making no apparent effort to recover the digital evidence, calling this a disappointing lapse that should be brought to the notice of the competent authorities. Considering the case was over a decade old, the Court modified the sentence to the period of custody already undergone.

Lesson Learnt

A criminal intimidation conviction can be sustained on credible victim testimony alone, even without recovery of corroborating digital evidence, but investigating officers have a clear duty to actually attempt recovery of such evidence, and failing to do so invites judicial censure even when it doesn't overturn the conviction.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case