(b) If a woman watches or captures the image of another woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed by any other person, does that amount to offence of 'voyeurism' under the Indian Penal Code? Discuss.
Verified Answer
-
Core Legal Answer & Context: The scenario described, where a woman watches or captures the image of another woman engaging in a private act under circumstances where there is an expectation of privacy, directly falls within the ambit of 'voyeurism' as defined under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The offence of voyeurism was introduced to specifically address acts that violate an individual's privacy, particularly in situations where they have a reasonable expectation of not being observed or recorded. The gender of the perpetrator or victim is not a limiting factor for the application of this section, as long as the victim is a woman.
-
Relevant Statutes and Sections:
- Section 354C, Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines and penalizes voyeurism. It states: "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..." The explanation clarifies that "private act" includes an act of watching or capturing the image of the genitals, posterior, or breasts of a woman, or recording a woman in a state of undress, or sexual act, or any other act that is not of a public nature. Crucially, the section begins with "Any man who watches..." However, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, which introduced this section, aimed to protect women from such acts. While the wording specifically mentions 'man', judicial interpretation and legislative intent often extend the spirit of such laws to cover similar acts by women against women, especially when the harm is identical. Some interpretations argue that the 'man' refers to the gender of the perpetrator, but the broader intent is to protect women. If the question implies a strict reading, then technically, a woman cannot be the perpetrator under the literal wording of 354C. However, if the intent is to protect women from such acts irrespective of the perpetrator's gender, then it could be argued that such an act by a woman would still be an offence, perhaps under other related provisions or through a purposive interpretation. Given the specific wording, a strict interpretation would say 'no' for a female perpetrator, but a purposive interpretation might argue for its applicability or for other related offences like criminal intimidation or insult to modesty if applicable.
- Important Landmark Cases:
- The offence of voyeurism under Section 354C was introduced by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, following the recommendations of the Justice J.S. Verma Committee. This amendment was a direct response to the need for stronger laws to protect women against sexual offences and privacy violations. While specific landmark cases directly on a woman perpetrating voyeurism against another woman under 354C are still evolving, the legislative intent behind the amendment was to provide comprehensive protection to women. The focus is on the victim being a woman and the act violating her privacy. The literal wording of Section 354C, however, specifies 'Any man who watches...'. This creates an ambiguity for a female perpetrator. If the question strictly adheres to the text, then a woman cannot be the perpetrator under 354C. However, the spirit of the law is to protect women's privacy. Other sections like 354D (stalking) or 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) might be considered depending on the specific facts, if 354C is deemed inapplicable due to the perpetrator's gender.
- Clear Conclusion: Strictly interpreting the current wording of Section 354C of the IPC, which states "Any man who watches...", a woman watching or capturing the image of another woman engaging in a private act would technically not fall under the direct purview of Section 354C as the perpetrator. The section explicitly identifies the perpetrator as 'any man'. However, such an act is a grave violation of privacy and could potentially be addressed under other provisions of the IPC, such as Section 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), or if there's an element of stalking, Section 354D. There is a strong argument for legislative review to broaden the scope of Section 354C to include female perpetrators, aligning with the broader intent of protecting women's privacy irrespective of the gender of the person committing the act.