The court ruled that a woman taking a bath in a locked bathroom has a right to expect that her privacy will be respected and that she won’t be observed.
On Thursday, the Delhi High Court ruled that bathing in a bathroom is a “private act,” even if the restroom is public and has only a curtain instead of a door.
Therefore, if someone peeks into a bathroom like this while a woman is taking a bath, they would be breaking the law according to Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A woman taking a bath in a locked bathroom will expect reasonably that her privacy will not be invaded and that she will not be seen or watched, according to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
“Anyone caught peeking inside the specified bathroom will unquestionably be charged with violating her privacy… Every person’s sexual integrity must be respected, and any violation of that integrity must be dealt with harshly, the Court emphasized.
Sonu @ Billa, who had been convicted by the trial court for an offense under Section 354C of the IPC and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act of 2012, had filed an appeal before Justice Sharma.
Sonu was given a one-year term of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 rupees.
A young girl claimed that the defendant used to look at her with sexual intent and that, whenever she went to the bathroom to take a bath, he would stand outside the bathroom under various pretexts and peep inside. This led to the filing of a complaint against the defendant in September 2014.
Additionally, it was claimed that he used to make derogatory comments, gestures, and remarks about her.
Sonu’s attorney countered that since the victim would bathe in a public restroom outside her jhuggi, bathing in holy rivers, water parks, swimming pools, or lakes is analogous to doing so.
After reviewing the case, Justice Sharma observed that despite being in an open area, the bathroom in question did not qualify as an open public space because it had walls and a curtain covering its entrance.
“The learned counsel for the appellant’s claim that the victim’s act of taking a bath in the current case changed from being a “private act” to a “public act” is completely without foundation. . “The contention that the victim’s act of taking a bath became a “public act” instead of being a “private act” for the said reason has to be outright rejected,” the Court said. “Merely because a structure that is being used as a bathroom by a woman does not have a door but only a curtain and temporary walls and is situated outside her house does not make it a public place..
It was decided that the definition of Section 354C IPC read with Explanation 1, which defines “private act,” is squarely covered when the elements of Section 354C are tested in the factual situation of the current case..
Justice Sharma added that bathing in a closed bathroom while a female is taking a holy dip at a religious site cannot be compared to that.
According to the Court, there will be a “reasonable expectation” that such women will not be photographed or recorded while bathing in a public area.
“Even in those circumstances, it would still be an invasion of her privacy. As stated in Section 354C of the IPC and the Explanation thereto, “No person has the right, even in that circumstance, to take her photographs, videos, etc.,” the Court ruled.
The bench therefore came to the conclusion that the accused’s actions constituted a violation of privacy and that the trial court’s order was valid.
However, it overturned the POCSO conviction because the prosecution was unable to establish that the victim was under the age of 18.
“In light of the foregoing, the contested judgment, dated November 15, 2021, is reversed to the extent that appellant was found guilty under Section 12 of the POCSO Act… Insofar as they concern the conviction and sentencing under Section 354C of the IPC, the Court held that the contested judgment from November 15, 2021, and the order on sentence from December 15, 2021, are upheld.
For the appellant, attorney Ashish Dahiya made an appearance.
Naresh Kumar Chahar, an additional public prosecutor (APP), spoke on behalf of the State.
Written By- Tushar Vashisth students of 3rd year BBA LLB at Chandigarh University
0 Comments