Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2nd Argument

26. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that Section 354C of IPC under which the applicant had been charged with, is not attracted as necessary ingredients to attract the said section is completely missing in the entire material collected by the Investigating Officer. Section 354C of IPC is being quoted below for ready reference:

"354C. Voyeurism.-Any man who watches, or captures the image of a woman engaging 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 shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

39. In reply to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant in respect of Section 28 of the Act, 2013, learned counsel for O.P. no.2 submitted that both the proceedings are parallel proceedings and they can run simultaneously. He further submitted that the language of Section 28 of the Act, 2013 is very clear, which says that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to any other proceedings.

40. In reply to the argument that Section 354C of IPC is not made out against the applicant, Sri Singh submitted that on conjoint reading of FIR and the statements of the complainant recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., offence under Section 354C of IPC is clearly made out against the applicant. He further submitted that as per the allegations in the FIR, offence under Sections 504 and 506 IPC is also made out against the applicant.

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

"Professor Javed said that if she hadn't been a S.C., she would not have been selected."

47. 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.

53. The instant case is squarely covered by Guidelines (1), (3) and (7) of Bhajan Lal's case(supra). The complainant, whenever she had been admonished by her seniors, she would go and file complaints in all possible forums to wreak vengeance with ulterior motive. Further the plain reading of the FIR and the statements of the complainant under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. clearly shows that the allegations levelled against the applicant, does not comes under the ambit of Sections 354C, 504 and 506 IPC. Since, the offences does not fall within the ambit of these sections, in the result Section 3(2)(va) of the S.C./S.T. Act is also not attracted in the instant case as to attract Section 3(2)(va) of the S.C./S.T. Act, offences under Sections 354C and 506 IPC are to be made out.