Does Secretly Photographing a Woman in Public Amount to Stalking? Calcutta HC Decides

The Calcutta High Court recently dismissed a case of voyeurism and stalking against a man who was charged by the police in 2016 on accusations of secretly photographing a woman from his residence.

Justice Bibhas Ranjan De noted that while observing and photographing a woman engaged in a private act constitutes voyeurism under Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the offence of stalking also requires specific elements to be established.

In this instance, the accusation was that the defendant had taken photographs of the complainant from his residence while she was standing on the road in front of her home.

“It is also alleged that when the complainant noticed a flash, the accused retreated into his building. Such allegations do not fall under any penal provisions either under Section 354C or 354D of the IPC in relation to the essential elements required to constitute those offences,” the Court stated.

In 2016, the woman had filed a complaint with the police alleging that when she and her daughter went to school, the market, or for private tuition, the accused would watch and follow them. It was also claimed that he would photograph her with his camera and phone.

Specifically, the complainant mentioned an incident where, while she was standing on the road outside her house, the accused was surreptitiously taking her picture. The complainant reported that he fled into his house when she noticed a flash.
Following the complaint, the police had registered a case of voyeurism and stalking against the accused.

Challenging this, the accused argued that the complainant had filed the case merely to “exert pressure on the developer to provide her with an additional car parking space to which she had no right, title, or interest.”

However, the complainant contended that the ongoing civil dispute did not exempt the accused from criminal proceedings. The State also argued that there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case. The Court examined the provisions related to voyeurism and stalking and reached the following conclusions:

Regarding Section 354C of the IPC, the Court stated: "Section 354C of the IPC aims to protect the modesty and decency of women and to maintain public order. It seeks to create a secure environment for women in public places by penalising acts that infringe upon their modesty and instil fear. The provision should be interpreted broadly to achieve its objectives."

Similarly, concerning the offence of stalking under Section 354D of the IPC, the Court outlined:

Perpetrator’s Gender: Stalking must be committed by a man. The offence is gender-specific, involving a male perpetrator and a female victim.

Unwanted Contact: The man must attempt to contact or contact a woman against her wishes. This includes any form of communication, whether in person or electronic, where the woman has shown disinterest and the man continues to pursue contact.

Repetition: Stalking must involve a pattern of persistent and unwanted attention or contact. It is not a one-time event but a continuous pattern of behaviour.

Absence of Interest: There must be a clear indication of disinterest from the woman. This is crucial to demonstrate that the woman’s lack of consent or interest is evident, and that the man persists despite her objections.

In the present case, the Court found that no specific evidence had been gathered to establish any of the elements of the two offences against the accused. As a result, the Court dismissed the criminal proceedings and also rejected the complainant's petition for a speedy trial.

For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.