The act of peeping inside a closed bathroom while a woman is taking a bath constitutes voyeurism under Section 354C of IPC, and the victim's reasonable expectation of privacy is crucial in determining the offense.

JUDGMENT

Index to the Judgment

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. The instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C') has been filed on behalf of appellant against the judgment of conviction dated 15.11.2021and order on sentence dated 15.12.2021 in Session Case No. 234/14 titled as "State vs. Sonu @ Billa" arising out of FIR bearing no. 730/2014, registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar East, Delhi for the offences punishable under Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (`POCSO Act') whereby the appellant has been convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge-07 (POCSO), West Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court') for having committed offence under Section 354C of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.2000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly stated, necessary for the adjudication of present appeal are that the present FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged on 24.09.2014 whereby it was alleged that when the victim used to sit outside her house, the appellant used to look at her with sexual intent and whenever she used to go to take bath, the appellant used to stand outside the bathroom on different pretexts and used to peep inside the bathroom. It was also stated that he used to pass vulgar remarks, comments and gestures against her. It was also alleged that one week prior to registration of the FIR, when the victim was sitting on a chair outside her house, the appellant had thrown iron wire ring towards and when she had objected, he had passed lewd comments against her. The victim had lodged complaint and on the basis of the same, present FIR was registered under Sections 354C/509 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act. The statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and after investigation, the chargesheet was filed under Sections 354C/509 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act. Charges were framed by the learned Trial Court under Sections 354C/354D of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act.

3. After concluding evidence and hearing arguments, the appellant was convicted by the learned Trial Court for committing offence under Section 354C of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, and was sentenced as mentioned in preceding paragraphs.

ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED COUNSELS

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court on the ground that the Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of assumptions, presumptions, conjunctures and surmises. It is argued that the learned Trial Court did not appreciate that there were material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and therefore, they are not reliable. It is also argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is also stated that learned Trial Court did not appreciate that the allegations leveled by the victim that appellant used to peep inside the bathroom whenever she used to take bath had been made with mala fide intention as the family of the victim and the appellant had strained relations and they were trying to grab each other's jhuggi and also used to fight with each other on one pretext or the other. It is also argued that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. It is also argued that the learned Trial Court did not appreciate that the police officials had obtained signatures of the victim on a paper on which only one or two lines were written which makes her testimony doubtful. It is also argued that victim is a well educated college