The act of glancing at a minor outside her house does not constitute voyeurism under IPC; no privacy or sexual intent was proven.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – original complainant under Section 413 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS ’) against respondent no.1 – State and the respondent no.1 – original accused challenging the impugned judgment and the order passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (POCSO) Case No. 26 of 2020 order dated 01.07.2024, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent no. 2 – original accused from the offence under Section 354(C) of the Indina Penal Code ((hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and under Section 11 (iv) of the POCSO Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

1.1 The appellant and the respondent no. 2 are hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant and the accused’ as they stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1. The residential house of the complainant Sejalben Pareshkumar Shah and the residential house of the accused were opposite each other in Vrindavan bungalows, Vaghodiya- Dabhoi Ring Road, Kubereshwar Marg, Vadodara and on 05.03.2017 while at around 8:15am, the minor daughter of the complainant was standing outside of her house waiting for the school van, the accused was staring at her in a wrongful manner. When asked what was he looking at, the accused started laughing and the minor daughter of the complainant got frightened. The complainant Sejalben Pareshkumar Shah, the mother of the minor victim, filed a complaint at the Panigate Police Station on the same day under Section 354(C) of the IPC, which came to be registered as Panigate Police Station I- C.R.No.76 of 2017.

2.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having sufficient material against the accused, the chargesheet came to be filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate.

2.3. The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned 12th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara and a charge was framed at Exh.5 under Section 354(C) of the IPC and the plea of the accused was recorded at Exh.6. The accused denied the contents of the charge and during the dependency of the trial, the learned APP filed an application at Exh.24 stating that the provisions of the POCSO Act are attracted as the victim is a minor and an application at Exh.24 was preferred to add Section 11 (4) of the POCSO Act. After the parties were heard, the learned Trial Court allowed the application and as the offence under the POCSO Act is triable by the Special Court, a committal order under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. was passed and the case was committed to the Special Court, Vadodara.

2.4. In connection with the charge framed by the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate, the statement of the accused was again recorded at Exh.19 by the learned Trial Court, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

2.5. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.29, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded wherein the accused denied the evidence on record and stated that he has been falsely framed as he has filed a complaint against the complainant and he is innocent. The accused did not step into the witness box or lead any evidence. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after peru