Facts of the Case

According to the prosecution, on May 3, 2022, at approximately 4:30 a.m., the de facto complainant was standing outside her house when accused Nos. 1 and 2 arrived in a car and allegedly started taking photographs of her and her residence. Upon noticing this, the complainant approached the car near the gate and questioned their actions. The prosecution claimed that the accused responded with sexually suggestive gestures. The specific act attributed to the 1st accused was mimicking the gesture of grabbing her breast, while the 2nd accused made another gesture with a dual, sexually explicit meaning. These actions were said to have outraged the complainant’s modesty and were the foundation for the allegations under Sections 354C and 509 of the IPC.

Contentions of the Parties

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the case lacked substantial evidence, noting that although the complainant alleged inappropriate actions, the mobile phone recovered from the accused did not contain any incriminating photographs. The defense also pointed out that other witnesses could only provide hearsay testimony, weakening the case. Furthermore, the petitioner claimed the case was a result of personal rivalry, as the de facto complainant had previously held a position as the Secretary of the Nandyattukunnam Sree Subrahmania Swamy temple committee, where the petitioner had questioned her actions, suggesting that the complaint was a retaliatory measure.

The learned Public Prosecutor supported the prosecution’s case, asserting that the allegations in the FIR made out a prima facie case, despite the potential weakness in fully establishing an offense under Section 354C of the IPC. The prosecution maintained that the investigation records supported at least some of the charges levied against the accused.

Court’s Observations

The court reviewed the contents of the FIR and relevant sections of the IPC to determine whether the charges could be sustained. It noted that Section 509 of the IPC addresses acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman, including words, gestures, or actions aimed at causing such insult. The allegations made by the complainant were consistent with this section. However, the court pointed out that Section 354C, which pertains to voyeurism, is defined as the act of watching or capturing images of a woman during a “private act” where she would reasonably expect privacy. This section’s explanation clarifies that a private act involves exposure or partial exposure of genitals, posterior, or breasts. Since the alleged incident occurred in an open, public area in front of the complainant’s house, the court found that this did not constitute a “private act” as per the statutory definition, making Section 354C inapplicable.

Court’s Decision

The court partially allowed the petition. It quashed the charge under Section 354C of the IPC, concluding that the conditions necessary to support this offense were not met in the context of the incident. However, the court upheld the continuation of prosecution under Section 509 of the IPC, which pertains to acts or gestures intended to insult the modesty of a woman. Additionally, the court noted that the trial court, during the framing of charges, should consider whether the actions alleged could support charges under Section 354A(1)(i) and (iv) of the IPC, which deal with physical advances involving unwelcome sexual overtures and sexually colored remarks.

– Deeksha Rai