According to Explanation 1 of Section 354C of the IPC, private act includes keeping an eye on a person in a place which, in the circumstances, might reasonably be expected to afford privacy and where the victim’s genitals, rear end or breasts are exposed or covered only by underwear, or the victim uses a toilet, or the victim engages in a sexual act other than of a kind normally done in public.
A bench comprising Justice N Kotiswar Singh and Justice Manmohan, while discharging a Kolkata man from the voyeurism charges, noted that the man was booked for voyeurism solely for taking the video of a woman while entering a disputed premises. However, the allegations in the First Information Report (FIR) and material on record did not disclose any offense under Section 354C (voyeurism) of the IPC against the appellant.
The court while discharging the man noted that Section 354C of the IPC defines voyeurism as an act whereby a man watches or captures the image of a woman engaged in a ‘private act’ in circumstances where she would ordinarily have the expectation of not being observed, and took into account the definition of ‘private act’ as defined in Explanation 1 of Section 354C of the IPC.
A woman had filed a case against the Kolkata man, son of one of the co-owners of the disputed property, alleging that he intimidated her, her boyfriend and workmen and stopped them from entering a property in Salt Lake in Kolkata when they tried to enter the property. She further alleged that he further intimidated her by clicking her photos and taking her videos on his mobile phone without her consent, thereby invading her privacy and outraged her modesty. In August 2020, a chargesheet was filed against the accused for offenses punishable under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 354C and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.
The suspect’s lawyer has submitted that two brothers are co-owners of the said property and that the suspect is the son of one of the brothers. The other brother had attempted to dispossess the other brother without due process of law and an order passed by a court was in force on the date of the incident leading to the filing of the FIR against his client.
The top court noted that the record shows that the complainant had no right to enter the premises on the date of the alleged offense and that the introduction of the complainant as a tenant into the premises would in fact have been in violation of the order passed by the court. The allegations contained in the FIR and the material on record constitute a cause of action for filing summary judgment and/or application for modification of the interim order already in force or application for relief of entry and exit in the pending suit, it added.
“After considering the FIR and the charge sheet, this court is unable to conclude the same disclosure of an offense punishable under Section 354C of the IPC as there is no allegation in the FIR and the charge sheet that the complainant was kept under surveillance or captured by the accused while engaged in a ‘private act’,” the Supreme Court said, adding that criminal proceedings were being initiated against the accused for offenses punishable under the sections 341 and 506 of the IPC. is also not resolved.
The Supreme Court, while acquitting the accused, also said that the police at the stage of filing charges and the criminal court at the stage of framing charges should act as initial filters and ensure that only cases of strong suspicion are allowed to proceed to the formal trial stage to maintain the efficiency and integrity of the justice system.
“The police, at the stage of filing charges, and the criminal court at the stage of preparing charges, should act as initial filters and ensure that only cases with strong suspicion proceed to the formal trial stage to preserve the efficiency and integrity of the legal system. The tendency to file charges in cases where there is no strong suspicion clogs the justice system,” the court said in its order.
– Ends
Tune in
#photo #woman #consent #nonprivate #acts #voyeurism