Kochi, Nov 4 Kerala High Court on Monday ruled out that if a woman’s photographs are clicked while she is standing in front of her house without any secrecy will not call for an offence of voyeurism under Section 354C of IPC.
The Court therefore quashed the proceedings against an accused after finding that the alleged occurrence of capturing images took place when the de facto complainant was standing in front of her house without any secrecy.
“Indubitably, watching or capturing the image of a woman, engaged 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 alone is punishable. If a woman normally appears in a public place or private place, not in circumstances where she would usually expect, any other person to either see or capture her image, the same, in no way, affects her privacy by exposing the genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear etc., no offence under Section 354C of the IPC, would attract,” ruled the Court.
The petitioner had approached the High Court to quash the charge sheet and all further proceedings against him.
The complaint against the man and his friend was that the two of them reached in front of the house of the de facto complainant in a car and took photographs of her and the house besides allegedly showing gestures with sexual overtures and outraging her modesty.
“Even though explanation 1 to Section 354C provides that “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, the occurrence is in front of the house of the de facto complainant. Therefore, it could not be held that the said offence is made out,” pointed out the Court.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor