LI Network
Published on: 07 April 2023 at 14:30 IST
Hon’ble Delhi High Court clarifies that, if a man peeps inside a woman’s bathroom while she is bathing, he is invading her privacy and committing voyeurism.
The court stated that while the victim’s age could not be proven to be less than 18 years, the appellant’s conviction under the POCSO Act could not be upheld. The court noted that the victim was in college at the time of the occurrence and, according to the testimony of a prosecution witness, she was around 17 years old on the date of the incident.
Court stated “Since the date of adoption and not the date of birth has been mentioned in the school certificate, therefore, Trial Court committed an error by relying on the date of birth, which as per the admission of the parents of the victim in this regard, was based on assumptions,”
The Court Highlighted “The social context of crimes cannot be lost sight of by the Courts. The Courts need to remain alive to the social realities in such cases where the victim due to her poverty did not have the luxury of having a bathroom inside her house, but had 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.
FACTS
FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged on 24.09.2014 whereby it was alleged that when the victim used to sit outside her house, the appellant used to look at her with sexual intent and whenever she used to go to take bath, the appellant used to stand outside the bathroom on different pretexts and used to peep inside the bathroom.
It was also stated that he used to pass vulgar remarks, comments and gestures against her.
It was also alleged that one week prior to registration of the FIR, when the victim was sitting on a chair outside her house, the appellant had thrown iron wire ring towards and when she had objected, he had passed lewd comments against her.
The victim had lodged complaint and on the basis of the same, present FIR was registered under Sections 354C/509 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act. The statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and after investigation, the chargesheet was filed under Sections 354C/509 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act. Charges were framed by the learned Trial Court under Sections 354C/354D of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act.
After concluding evidence and hearing arguments, the appellant was convicted by the learned Trial Court for committing offence under Section 354C of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, and was sentenced as mentioned in preceding paragraphs.
SECTION 354C OF IPC VOYEURISM: ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Court Said in the order that, “
Voyeurism has been introduced as a sex crime against women in India by way of The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. Since the appellant has been convicted and sentenced inter alia under Section 354C of IPC, it would be appurtenant to refer to the said provision, which is reproduced as under:
“354C. Voyeurism.— Any man who watches, or captures the image of a woman engaging 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 shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1.— For the purpose of this section, “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.
Explanation 2.—Where the victim consents to the capture of the images or any act, but not to their dissemination to third persons and where such image or act is disseminated, such dissemination shall be considered an offence under this section.”
CONCLUSION
In respect of the conviction of appellant under Section 12 of POCSO Act, this Court holds the view that the prosecution was not able to prove that the victim was less than 18 years of age at the time 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. In view thereof, impugned judgment dated 15.11.2021, to the extent of conviction of appellant under Section 12 of POCSO Act, is set aside.
The social context of crimes cannot be lost sight of by the Courts. The Courts need to remain alive to the social realities in such cases where the victim due to her poverty did not have luxury of having a bathroom inside her house, but had a make shift 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. Thus, there are no reasons to interfere with impugned judgment and order on sentence passed by the learned Trial Court as far as conviction under Section 354C of IPC is concerned. The impugned judgment dated 15.11.2021 and order on sentence dated 15.12.2021, insofar as they relate to conviction and sentencing under Section 354C of IPC, are hereby upheld.
