The Delhi High Court has observed that if a man peeps inside the washroom when a woman is taking bath, it will amount to invasion of her privacy and also attract the offence of voyeurism. The high court said the man’s act of peeping inside the bathroom with sexual intent whenever the victim used to take bath, and to pass vulgar remarks, comments and gestures against her were not trivial and ill-mannered behaviour but amounted to breach of privacy of the woman and will attract criminality as envisaged under Section 354C (voyeurism) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma upheld the man’s conviction and one year sentence for the offence of voyeurism but acquitted him under the provision of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), noting that the woman was not a minor at the time of the incident in 2014. Justice Sharma said that taking bath in a bathroom by any person, whether a male or a female, is essentially a “private act” as it is taking place inside the four walls of the bathroom.
“It cannot be denied that a woman taking bath inside a closed bathroom will reasonably expect that her privacy was not invaded and she was not being seen or watched by anyone as she is behind closed walls behind a curtain. The act of a perpetrator peeping inside the said bathroom will certainly be regarded as invasion of her privacy,” the court said in its 18 pages order. The high court said the man’s act of peeping inside the bathroom with sexual intent whenever the victim used to take bath, and to pass vulgar remarks, comments and gestures against her were not trivial and ill-mannered behaviour but amounted to breach of privacy of the woman and will attract criminality as envisaged under Section 354C (voyeurism) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
“The objective behind introducing the present offence (voyeurism) was to curb sexual crime against women and to protect their privacy and sexual integrity. The law has to ensure that all citizens are able to enjoy a peaceful life with peace of mind having assurance that their privacy is respected and such kind of trespass and mischief will attract the criminality of voyeuristic behavior of the perpetrator of the crime. “The sexual integrity of every person has to be respected and any violation of the same should be dealt with a stern hand,” the judge said.
The high court said the argument of the man’s counsel that the act of taking bath by the victim in the present case, instead of being a ‘private act’ became a ‘public act’ is “totally meritless”.
“Merely because a structure which is being used as bathroom by a woman does not have a door but only a curtain and temporary walls and it is situated outside her house does not make it a public place and the contention that the act of taking bath by the victim became a ‘public act’ instead of being a ‘private act’ for the said reason has to be outrightly rejected,” the high court said. The court underlined it will be irrational to say that a woman taking a bath in a washroom inside her house is a private act and bathing in a covered bathroom outside her house is a public act. “This court therefore holds that the bathroom in question in this case was not a public place and the act of taking bath therein was a ‘private act’,” it said.
The high court’s order came on an appeal filed by the man challenging his conviction and sentence in a case in which the woman lodged an FIR that he used to look at her with sexual intent and whenever she used to take bath, he would peep inside the bathroom which was built outside her house.
The man’s counsel argued the bathroom used by the victim being situated at a common public place cannot be termed as a ‘private area’ but a ‘public place’ and so the act of bathing at such ‘public place’ cannot be called a ‘private act’. He argued in case the court held a contrary view, several thousands of people can be prosecuted merely for their presence at public places such as water parks, swimming pools, lakes, ponds or even while taking bath in rivers at religious places.