Watching Woman Or Capturing Her Images Not Voyeurism U/S 354C IPC Unless In Circumstances Where She Would Expect Privacy: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that the offence of voyeurism under Section 354C of IPC will not attract when a woman's photos were clicked by two men, while she was standing in front of her house without any secrecy.
Justice A. Badharudeen made it clear that the offence is attracted only upon watching or capturing images of a woman engaging in a 'private act' as mentioned under the provision.
The explanation to Section 354 C defines 'private act' as an act of watching a private act carried out in a place where a person usually expects privacy. This includes situations where the victim's genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear; or the victim is using a lavatory; or the victim is engaged in a sexual act that is not ordinarily done in public.
The bench thus quashed the proceedings against the accused under Section 345C on finding that the alleged occurrence of capturing images took place when the de facto complainant was standing in front of her house without any secrecy.
“Indubitably, watching or capturing the image of a woman, engaged in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such image alone is punishable. If a woman normally appears in a public place or private place not in circumstances where she would usually expect, any other person if either see or captures her image, the same, in no way, affect her privacy by exposing the genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear etc., no offence under Section 354C of the IPC, would attract.”
The petitioner is the first accused alleged of committing offences punishable under Sections 354C (Voyeurism) and 509 (Word, gesture or act intended to insult woman's modesty) of the IPC has approached the High Court to quash the charge sheet and all further proceedings against him.
The allegation against the petitioner is that he and the second accused reached in front of the house of the de facto complainant in a car and took photographs of her and the house. It is also alleged that the accused showed gestures with sexual overtures and outraged her modesty.
Court stated that the term private act is defined under the explanation to attract an offence of voyeurism. The court stated that the offence under voyeurism is not attracted when the alleged occurrence was in front of the house of the de facto complainant.
“Even though explanation 1 to Section 354C provides that “private act” includes an act of watching carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy and where the victim's genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear; or the victim is using a lavatory; or the victim is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public, the occurrence is in front of the house of the de facto complainant. Therefore, it could not be held that the said offence is made out.”
As such, the Court held that voyeurism was not made out and quashed the proceedings under Section 354C of the IPC. It also stated that the Trial Court while framing the charges shall consider whether the alleged overt acts would attract an offence of sexual harassment under Section 354A of the IPC.
The Court also ordered that prosecution under Section 509 of IPC can continue.
As such, the petition was partly allowed.
Counsel for Petitioners: Advocate Sreekanth K.M., T.P.Rashmy, Arjun T. Pradeep
Counsel for Respondents: M P Prasanth
Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 8677 OF 2024
Case Title: Ajith Pillai v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 692