Peeping Inside Washroom When Woman Is Taking Bath Amounts To Invasion Of Privacy, Will Attract Offence Of Voyeurism: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that if a man peeps inside the washroom when a woman is taking bath, it will amount to invasion of her privacy and also attract the offence of voyeurism.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that taking bath in a bathroom by any person, whether a male or a female, is essentially a “private act” as it is taking place inside the four walls of the bathroom.

“It cannot be denied that a woman taking bath inside a closed bathroom will reasonably expect that her privacy was not invaded and she was not being seen or watched by anyone as she is behind closed walls behind a curtain. The act of a perpetrator peeping inside the said bathroom will certainly be regarded as invasion of her privacy,” the court said.

The court made the observation while upholding the conviction of a man under section 354C of Indian Penal Code, as well as the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year imposed on him. He was convicted in 2021 for peeping inside the washroom situated outside a jhuggi.

However, the court set aside his conviction under section 12 of the POCSO Act observing that the prosecution was unable to prove that the victim was less than 18 years of age at the time of incident.

Since the age of the victim could not be proved to be less than 18 years, conviction of the appellant under POCSO Act cannot be sustained, the court said.

The court noted that the victim was studying in college at the relevant time and that as per the statement of a prosecution witness, she was about 17 years of age on the date of incident.

“Since the date of adoption and not date of birth has been mentioned in school certificate, therefore, Trial Court committed an error by relying on date of birth, which as per admission of parents of victim in this regard, was based on assumptions,” it said.

Noting that the social context of crimes cannot be lost sight of, Justice Sharma said that the courts need to remain alive to the “social realities” in cases where the victim due to her poverty does not have “luxury of having a bathroom inside her house” but has a makeshift bathroom outside her own house.

“The act of the appellant peeping inside the bathroom which unfortunately, only had a curtain on the entrance of the bathroom instead of a door, would certainly attract the criminality under Section 354C of IPC. Needless to say, such an act would certainly put a woman under embarrassment and constant fear of being observed while she takes bath even behind the four walls of a make shift bathroom,” the court said.

Analyzing explanation 1 to section 354C, the court said that the definition of voyeurism would include within its ambit an act of watching by the perpetrator, in a place used by a woman where she is engaged in a “private act”, which would reasonably be expected by her to provide privacy and where her genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear.

The court added that the meaning would also include a situation where the victim is using a lavatory or doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public and she has “reasonable expectation” that she would not be observed by the perpetrator or any other person or where she consents capturing of images but not to their dissemination to third persons.

Calling it meritless and absurd, the court rejected the argument of the appellant’s counsel that since the washroom used by the victim was situated at a common public place, the act of bathing there cannot be held to be a private act.

Observing that the objective behind introducing the offence of voyeurism was to curb sexual crime against women and to protect their privacy and sexual integrity, the court said:

“The law has to ensure that all citizens are able to enjoy a peaceful life with peace of mind having assurance that their privacy is respected and such kind of trespass and mischief will attract the criminality of voyeuristic behavior of the perpetrator of the crime. The sexual integrity of every person has to be respected and any violation of the same should be dealt with a stern hand.”

The court also strongly disagreed with the submission of appellant’s counsel that if the conviction is not set aside, it will amount to holding that people can be prosecuted for their mere presence at public places where women may be taking bath such as religious places, holy rivers and swimming pools.

While it said that taking holy dip at religious places cannot be equated with the closed bathroom where a female is taking bath, the court added that there will however be reasonable expectation in such cases that photographs or videos of such women are not taken or videos created.

“Even in those cases, it will amount to invading her privacy. No person has a right, even in that situation, to take her photographs, videos etc. as envisaged under Section 354C of IPC and the Explanation thereto,” the court said.

Title: SONU@BILLA v. STATE, THROUGH SHO, PS PASCHIM VIHAR EAST

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 291

Click Here To Read Order