Fortifying the concept of right to privacy and the spirit of women’s dignity, the Delhi High Court ruled on Thursday that taking a bath in a washroom has always been a private act and thus, no sense prevails if someone calls it a public act merely because the structure of the washroom was temporary.
Holding the man guilty of voyeurism, the court observed that the accused person’s act of peeping inside the bathroom with sexual purpose, whenever the victim used to take bath, and to pass sordid remarks and gestures, amounted to violation of privacy of the women and will invite criminality under Section 354C (voyeurism) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Though Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma upheld the man’s conviction and one year term for the acts of voyeurism, he acquitted him under the provision of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), noting that the woman was not a minor at the time of the incident in 2014. The judge further said that the objective behind introducing the present offence of voyeurism was to check sexual crime against women. The sexual integrity of every person should be respected and the same should be handled with a stern hand. The high court said the argument of the man’s counsel that the act of taking bath by the victim in the present case, instead of being a ‘private act’ became a ‘public act’ is “totally meritless”. “Merely because a structure which is being used as bathroom by a woman does not have a door but only a curtain and temporary walls and it is situated outside her house does not make it a public place and the contention that the act of taking bath by the victim became a ‘public act› instead of being a ‘private act› for the said reason has to be outrightly rejected,” the high court said.
The court observed it will be irrational to say that a woman taking a bath in a washroom inside her house is a private act and bathing in a covered bathroom outside her house is a public act. The high court›s order came on an appeal filed by the man challenging his conviction and sentence in a case in which the woman lodged an FIR that he used to look at her with sexual angle and whenever she used to take bath, he would peep inside the bathroom which was built outside her house. The high court, on the other hand, rejected the submissions, saying there can be no doubt that the woman taking bath will be considered to be engaged in a ‘private act› and having reasonable expectation of not being seen by anyone. “It is clear from the statements of the witnesses that the bathroom had small walls and a curtain used to be drawn at the time of taking bath by the victim. The contention that the act of taking bath cannot be considered a ‘private act› as it was being done in a public place is not only meritless but also absurd. «Taking bath in a bathroom by any person, whether a male or a female, is essentially a ‘private act› as it is taking place inside the four walls of the bathroom,” it said. It “strongly disagreed” with the argument of the man›s counsel that if the trial court›s order is not set aside, it will amount to holding that people can be prosecuted for their mere presence at public places where women may be taking bath such as religious places, holy rivers and swimming pools.
