The Kerala High Court has ruled that the offence of voyeurism, as defined under Section 354C of the IPC, does not apply in cases where two men took photographs of a woman standing in front of her house, as there was no expectation of privacy in that situation.

Justice A. Badharudeen clarified that the offence of voyeurism is only applicable when someone observes or captures images of a woman engaged in a "private act," as specified in the law.

The explanation to Section 354C defines a 'private act' as an act observed in a location where an individual typically has a reasonable expectation of privacy. This includes instances where the victim's genitals, buttocks, or breasts are exposed or covered only by underwear; when the victim is using a lavatory; or when the victim is involved in a sexual act that is not generally performed in public.

The bench subsequently quashed the proceedings against the accused under Section 354C, concluding that the alleged incident of capturing images occurred while the complainant was standing in front of her house, where there was no expectation of privacy.

“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 if either see or captures her image  the same, in no way, affect 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.”

The petitioner, identified as the first accused in a case involving allegations of offences under Sections 354C (Voyeurism) and 509 (Acts intended to insult a woman's modesty) of the IPC, has approached the High Court seeking to quash the charge sheet and all subsequent proceedings against him.

The petitioner is accused of arriving in front of the complainant's house in a car alongside the second accused, where they allegedly took photographs of both her and the house. Additionally, it is claimed that the accused made gestures with sexual implications, thereby outraging her modesty.

The court stated that the term "private act," as defined in the explanation for voyeurism, is essential for establishing the offence. It emphasized that the offence of voyeurism is not applicable when the alleged incident occurred in front of the complainant's house.

Consequently, the Court ruled that voyeurism was not established and quashed the proceedings under Section 354C of the IPC. It also noted that the Trial Court, when framing charges, should evaluate whether the alleged actions could constitute an offence of sexual harassment under Section 354A of the IPC.

The Court also ordered that prosecution under Section 509 of IPC can continue.

As such, the petition was partly allowed.

Counsel for Petitioners: Advocate Sreekanth K.M., T.P.Rashmy, Arjun T. Pradeep

Counsel for Respondents: M P Prasanth

Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 8677 OF 2024

Case Title: Ajith Pillai v State of Kerala