Watching a woman or capturing her images, not voyeurism U/S 354C IPC, except in circumstances where she would have an expectation of privacy: Kerala Supreme Court

Explanation to section 354 C defines “private act” as an act of viewing a private act conducted in a place where a person ordinarily expects privacy. This includes situations where the victim’s genitals, rear or breasts are exposed or covered only by underwear; or the victim uses a toilet; or the victim is involved in a sexual act that is not usually done in public.

Thus, the court quashed the proceedings against the accused under Section 345C, finding that the alleged occurrence of the capture of the images took place when the de facto plaintiff was standing in front of her house without any secret.

“Undoubtedly, viewing or capturing the image of a woman, engaged in a private act under circumstances where she would ordinarily expect not to be observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the perpetrator’s behest, or broadcast such of image alone. is punished. If a woman appears normally in a public place or in a private place, not under circumstances in which she would ordinarily expect, any other person if she sees or captures her image, likewise, in no way affects privacy by exposing the genitals, rear or breasts. are exposed or covered only in underwear etc., no offense under Section 354C of the IPC would attract.”

The petitioner is the first accused accused of committing the offenses punishable under Sections 354C (Voyeurism) and 509 (Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the IPC approached the High Court to quash the charge sheet and all subsequent proceedings against him. .

The allegation against the petitioner is that he and the second accused arrived in front of the de facto petitioner’s house in a car and photographed her and the house. It is also said that the accused showed sexually explicit gestures and outraged her modesty.

The Court stated that the term private act is defined in the explanation to attract a crime of voyeurism. The court stated that the crime of voyeurism is not attracted when the alleged incident was in front of the plaintiff’s de facto home.

“Even though Explanation 1 to Section 354C provides that ‘private act’ includes an act of surveillance carried out in a place which in the circumstances would reasonably be expected to afford privacy and where the victim’s genitalia, rear or breasts are exposed or covered. only in underwear; or the victim uses a toilet; or the victim engages in a sexual act that is not of the kind usually performed in public, the event takes place in front of the de facto complainant’s home. Therefore, the said offense could not be held to be established.”

As such, the Court held that voyeurism was not understood and quashed the proceedings under Section 354C of the IPC. It also stated that while framing the charges, the court will consider whether the alleged overt acts would attract an offense of sexual harassment under Section 354A of the IPC.

The Court also ordered that the prosecution under Section 509 of the IPC may proceed.

As such, the petition was partially allowed.

Counsel for Petitioners: Advocate Sreekanth KM, TPRashmy, Arjun T. Pradeep

Counsel for Defendants: MP Prasanth

Case number: CRL.MC NO. 8677 OF 2024

Case Title: Ajith Pillai v State of Kerala

Reference: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 692