Clicking photos or videos of women without consent during non-private acts not voyeurism: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that clicking photos or recording videos of a woman without her permission during non-private acts does not amount to voyeurism under Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code [Tuhin Kumar Biswas vs. The State of West Bengal]. .A bench of Justices NK Singh and Manmohan close the case against a man who had been booked for voyeurism solely for recording a video of a woman while she was entering a disputed property.While doing so, the bench said that the police and trial court ought to have be more careful while filing a chargesheet and framing charges against the man for voyeurism, particularly in the absence of strong suspicion to support the offence. It noted that pushing cases forward without the threshold of strong suspicion only clogs the criminal justice system and drains resources meant for more serious matters. .The Court was hearing an appeal arising from a long-running dispute between two brothers over a residential property in Kolkata's Salt Lake. The accused, one Tuhin Kumar Biswas, is the son of one co-owner, and the FIR stemmed from an incident during that property dispute.The case began in 2018, when the accused's father filed a civil suit against his brother. A civil court, on 29 November 2018, directed both sides to maintain joint possession and not create third-party rights. This injunction was still in force when the complainant, one Mamta Agarwal, visited the property in March 2020. She later filed an FIR at the behest of accused's uncle, alleging that he wrongfully restrained her, intimidated her and clicked her photos and videos without consent. On August 16, 2020, the police filed a chargesheet for offences under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 354C (voyeurism) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, even though the complainant refused to give a judicial statement.After both the trial court and Calcutta High Court refused to discharge him, the accused approached the Supreme Court..The Supreme Court first outlined the law on discharge. It underscored that a case can proceed to trial only if the material placed by the prosecution raises a strong suspicion that the accused may have committed the offence. The Bench explained that courts at this stage act as a filter to prevent weak cases from entering trial.The Court then examined whether the FIR and chargesheet disclosed an offence of voyeurism. It explained that voyeurism applies only when a woman is watched or photographed during a private act, such as undressing, using a bathroom or performing a sexual act. The Court found that there was no allegation of any such private act in this case. It noted that the High Court had already acknowledged that voyeurism was not made out from the FIR but still declined to discharge the appellant, which it found unsustainable..On the charge of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC, the Court noted that the FIR did not specify any threat of injury to person, property, or reputation - an essential element of the offenceThe Court also examined the allegation of wrongful restraint. It noted that the complainant was not shown to be a tenant, and that the only material on record suggested she had merely come to “see” the property as a prospective tenant. The Court observed that any induction of a tenant would violate the civil court’s injunction. The Bench therefore held that the accused had acted on a bona fide belief that he had a lawful right to prevent entry under the subsisting injunction order..In this context, the Court found the FIR to be rooted entirely in the family’s civil dispute over the property. It observed that the allegations, even taken at face value, amounted at best to issues that should be addressed through civil remedies like injunctions or applications in the pending suit, not criminal prosecution.The Bench then criticised the routine filing of chargesheets in matters where no strong suspicion exists. It noted that such a practice burdens the entire criminal justice system. "The tendency of filing chargesheets in matters where no strong suspicion is made out clogs the judicial system. It forces Judges, court staff, and prosecutors to spend time on trials that are likely to result in an acquittal. This diverts limited judicial resources from handling stronger, more serious cases, contributing to massive case backlogs. Undoubtedly, there can be no analysis at the charge framing stage as to whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal, but the fundamental principle is that the State should not prosecute citizens without a reasonable prospect of conviction, as it compromises the right to a fair process," the Court said. .Accordingly, it allowed the appeal and discharged the appellant of all charges. .The appellant was represented by advocates Somnath Ghoshal, Sahid Uddin Ahmed, Towseef Ahmad Dar, Anupam Bar and Zinat Sultana.The respondent was represented by advocates Prashant Alai and Kunal Mimani. .[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.