S. 354C IPC | Taking Photos Or Videos Of Woman When She's Not Engaged In Private Acts Won't Amount To Voyeurism : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that an act of clicking a woman's pictures and making her videos on a mobile phone without her consent, when is not indulging in a "private act", would not attract an offence of voyeurism under Section 354C IPC. Holding thus, a bench of Justices N Kotiswar Singh and Manmohan discharged a man, accused of intimidating the complainant by clicking her photos and making videos on his mobile phone, which she claimed that his act intruded upon her privacy and outraged her modesty.On March 19, 2020, the complainant, filed an FIR against the appellant-accused. The complaint was registered under Sections 341, 354C, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that on March 18, 2020, when she, along with her friend and some workmen, attempted to enter the property, the appellant-accused restrained them from entering and intimidated them. It was further alleged that the accused took photographs and videos of her without consent, thereby intruding upon her privacy and outraging her modesty. After investigation, the police filed a chargesheet on August 16, 2020, against the appellant for the said offences.The Supreme Court endorsed the impugned Calcutta High Court's decision, which, while quashing the criminal case against the Appellant, observed: “it is clearly intelligible that the allegation of clicking pictures and making video made in the written complaint cannot be said to be an offence within the meaning of Section 354C of IPC.”The Court found that the essential ingredients of the offence of voyeurism were not made out in the present case, as the Appellants' act of clicking photos or making videos didn't intrude on her privacy as she was not engaged in any 'private act'. “Section 354C of IPC defines voyeurism as an act of a man watching or capturing the image of a woman engaging in a 'private act' in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed. 'Private act' has been defined in Explanation 1 as an act including “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 court observed. “this Court is unable to conclude the same disclose an offence under Section 354C of the IPC since there is no allegation in the FIR and chargesheet that the complainant was watched or captured by the Appellant-accused while she was engaging in a 'private act'.”, the court held. The appeal was allowed. Cause Title: TUHIN KUMAR BISWAS @ BUMBA VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1159 Click here to download judgment Also From Judgment: Police, Courts Must Act As 'Initial Filters' To Avoid Prosecutions With No Reasonable Prospect Of Conviction: Supreme Court

S. 354C IPC | Taking Photos Or Videos Of Woman When She's Not Engaged In Private Acts Won't Amount To Voyeurism : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

S. 354C IPC | Taking Photos Or Videos Of Woman When She's Not Engaged In Private Acts Won't Amount To Voyeurism : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers