Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2nd Argument

19. Even if the averments made in the FIR and the statements of the complainant/O.P. no.2 recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. (supra) are relied upon, then also the basic ingredients for commission of offence under Section 354C IPC do not stand spelled out, inasmuch as, there is nothing in the statements to indicate that the complainant was being watched or her image was being captured when she was engaged in a private act.

20. Section 354C IPC is reproduced hereunder:

21. He further submitted that the allegations made in the FIR and the statement given by the informant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by no stretch of imagination would attract the provisions of Section 354C of IPC, inasmuch as, there is nothing in the FIR or statement given by complainant/O.P. no.2 to indicate that the applicant watched her or captured her impugned when she was engaged in a private act, as such, no offence of voyeurism is even remotely made out against the applicant. The submission of charge sheet against the applicant under Section 354C IPC is wholly unreasonable and was nothing but the mechanical act of the I.O. who has submitted the charge sheet without appreciating the evidence on record. The court below has also committed gross illegality by taking cognizance against the applicant with respect tot he offence under Section 354C IPD even though the basic ingredients of the offence were not spelled out.

35. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the provisions of Section 3(2)(va) of the S.C./S.T. Act would be attracted only when the offence for which the applicant is being sought to be prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code falls in the Schedule of the S.C./S.T. Act. Section 354C and 506 IPC comes in the schedule of the S.C./S.T. Act, as a result of which the applicant cannot sought to be prosecuted under the provisions of Section 3(2)(va) of the S.C./S.T. Act, if offence under Section 354C and 506 IPC are not made out.

51. Further in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. against the applicant she only stated as follows:

"Professor Prahlad said that she had forgotten her limits and she is very fond of going to Courts."

52. From the bare perusal of the contents of the FIR, and the statements under Section 161 and 164 CrP.C., it is quite apparent that there is no such allegation against the applicant that calls for invoking of Section 354C of IPC against him. The ingredients of Section 354C of IPC of voyeurism is only applicable if an accused captures the image of a woman engaging in private act, in circumstances where she would usually have the expectations of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person. In this case, the allegations levelled against the applicant does not fall within the category of the offence and hence, no offence is made out against him under Section 354C of IPC.