It's Not Stalking Or Voyeurism: Calcutta HC Quashes Criminal Case Against Man Accused Of Secretly Taking Photo Of Woman Standing On A Road
The Calcutta High Court quashed criminal case against a man accused of secretly capturing the photographs of a woman standing on the road.
The Court also discussed about the essential elements to be established for the commission of offences of Stalking and Voyeurism under Sections 354D and 354C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Single Bench of Justice Bibhas Ranjan De observed, “… observing and photographing a women engaging in a private act will amount to an offence punishable under Section 354C of the IPC. Section 354C of the IPC intends to protect the modesty and decency of women and secure public order. It aims to create a safe environment for women in public places by penalizing acts that violate their modesty and instill fear in them. The provision should be interpreted broadly to advance its objectives. … At the same time, the offence of stalking under Section 354D of the IPC involves a man as the perpetrator and a woman as victim. To constitute any offence under this Section the man must try to contact a woman against her interest.”
Advocate Sourav Chatterjee appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Advocate Tapas Dutta appeared on behalf of the opposite parties.
Facts of the Case -
The opposite party (complainant) lodged a written complaint alleging that whenever she with her daughter used to go to school, market, or private tuition, she noticed that the petitioner/accused used to watch and follow her. The petitioner allegedly captured her photographs/images on his camera and mobile phone on different occasions. Once he allegedly captured photographs secretly from his residence while the complainant was standing on the road in front of her residential building.
After noticing a flash, when the complainant looked at the residence of the petitioner, he fled inside the building. Apprehending that the petitioner might have used her photographs for any wrongful purpose, the complainant filed the complaint against him. Thereafter, a chargesheet was filed against him under Sections 354C and 354D of the IPC. The petitioner then surrendered and enlarged on bail. Being aggrieved with the impugned proceedings, he preferred the revision application before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the above facts noted that in order to establish the commission of the offence under Section 354C IPC, the following elements must be present:
• Intent to Outrage Modesty - The accused must have intentionally assaulted or used criminal force against a woman with the intention of outraging her modesty or knowledge that his act is likely to outrage her modesty. The intention and knowledge of the accused are essential elements to constitute the offense.
• Assault or Use of Criminal Force - The accused must have assaulted (i.e. intentionally put another person in fear of immediate and unlawful personal violence) or used criminal force (i.e. intentionally used force against another person without that person’s consent) against a woman. Mere words, however indecent or annoying, do not amount to an assault. There must be some active physical contact or violence.
• Against a Woman - The assault or criminal force must have been directed against a woman. The provision aims to protect the modesty of women.
• Takes Place in Public - The alleged act must have taken place in some public place or institution. The provision aims to protect the modesty of women in public spheres.
The Court said that the essentials of the offence of stalking under Section 354D IPC require specific elements to be established for a violation to occur which include the following:
• Perpetrator’s Gender - Stalking must be committed by any man. The offence is gender-specific, meaning it involves a man as the perpetrator and a woman as the victim.
• Unwanted Contact - The man must try to contact or contact a woman against her interest. This element involves any form of communication, be it in person or through electronic means, where the woman has expressed disinterest and the man persists in trying to establish contact.
• Repetition - The act of stalking must exhibit a certain degree of repeatedness. It’s not a one-time occurrence but rather involves a pattern of persistent and unwanted attention or contact. This pattern is essential to distinguish stalking from isolated or accidental interactions.
• Absence of Interest - There should be a clear indication of disinterest on the part of the woman. This element is crucial to ensure that the woman’s lack of consent or interest is evident and that the man is persisting despite her objections.
Coming back to the facts of the case, the Court enunciated that the allegations against the petitioner do not attract any of the penal provisions either under Section 354C or 354D of the IPC in respect of the essential elements required to constitute those offences.
“… the Court owes a duty to look into the contents of the written complaint and other attending circumstances as well as evidence collected during investigation with due care and circumspection. … On scrutiny of the case diary, particularly charge sheet, it has come to the notice of this Court that during investigation no specific evidence has been collected attributing any of the ingredients of Section 354C & 354D of the IPC”, emphasised the Court.
Furthermore, the Court added that, to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is not the rule but it is an exception which can be applied only if it appears to the Court that miscarriage of justice would be committed if the trial is allowed to proceed further.
“This Court is also not oblivious to the settled proposition of law that this Court cannot function either is a Court of appeal or revision and this power can only be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court”, it also said.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the revision application and quashed the proceedings against the accused.
Cause Title- Satyabrata Barik @ Mithu v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Sourav Chatterjee, Souvik Nandy, and Soumya Nag.
Opposite Parties: APP A. Sinha, Advocates Tapas Dutta, Mrityunjoy Halder, and Saryati Datta.
