The
Supreme Court recently said that photographing or recording a woman on a mobile
phone without her consent would not amount to voyeurism under Section 354C of
the Indian Penal
Code (IPC), if she is not engaged in a “private act”.
A
two-judge bench of Justices N Kotiswar Singh and Manmohan made the observation
and discharged a man, accused of intimidating the complainant by photographing
and recording her on his phone, an act she alleged breached her privacy and
outraged her modesty.
The
case dates back to March 19, 2020, when the complainant filed a First
Information Report (FIR) against the appellant-accused under IPC Sections 341,
354C and 506.
According
to the complainant, on March 18, 2020, when she, along with a friend and some
workmen, attempted to enter a property, the appellant allegedly stopped them
and issued threats. She further claimed that he clicked photographs and shot
videos of her without permission.
Following
an investigation, the police filed a chargesheet on August 16, 2020, for the
alleged offences.
The apex court upheld
the Calcutta High Court’s decision to quash the criminal case against the
appellant and observed, "It is clearly intelligible that the allegation of
clicking pictures and making a video made in the written complaint cannot be said
to be an offence within the meaning of Section 354C of IPC.”
The
top court also noted that the offence of voyeurism was not made out, adding
that the appellant's act of clicking photographs or recording videos did not
breach her privacy, in the manner contemplated under the law, since she was not
engaged in a “private act".
The
court noted that Section 354C defines voyeurism as watching or capturing an
image of a woman while she is involved in a “private act” in circumstances
where she would normally expect privacy. It added that “private act” covers
situations such as where intimate parts are exposed or covered only by
underwear, where the woman is using a lavatory, or where she is engaged in a
sexual act not ordinarily done in public.