LI Network
Published on: October 27, 2023 at 11:44 IST
The Telangana High Court has provided a significant clarification regarding Section 354-C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), known as voyeurism.
Justice K Surender ruled that the terms ‘any man,’ ‘perpetrator,’ or ‘any other person at the behest of the perpetrator’ mentioned in Section 354-C do not include an individual with whom a woman is in a consensual sexual relationship.
Justice Surender emphasized that the videos in question had not been shared with third parties, which is another condition outlined in Section 354-C.
This ruling came in response to an appeal filed by the accused, who was convicted under Section 354-C and acquitted under Sections 376(1) and 506 of the IPC.
The case involved a victim having an extramarital affair with the accused, who recorded their sexual encounters, initially with her consent. However, when the victim wanted to end the affair, the accused threatened to release the videos, leading to her filing a complaint.
The Sessions Judge had found that the recordings were not shared and that the victim initially consented to being filmed during sexual acts.
Justice Surender clarified that if recordings, even if taken consensually, were disseminated, it would be considered an offense under Section 354-C. In this case, the recordings were never shared or sent to anyone, and the appellant’s conviction was set aside.
The Telangana High Court’s decision provides clarity on the application of Section 354-C in cases of consensual sexual relationships and the dissemination of recorded material.
