Does secretly capturing a woman’s photo in public amount to stalking or voyeurism? Calcutta High Court answers

The Calcutta High Court recently quashed a case of voyeurism and stalking against a man who was booked by the Police in 2016 on allegations of secretly clicking photographs of a woman from his residence [Satyabrata Barik @ Mithu vs The State of West Bengal & Anr]..Justice Bibhas Ranjan De noted that while observing and photographing a woman engaging in a private act amounts to voyeurism under Section 345C of the India Penal Code (IPC), the offence of stalking also requires specific elements to be established first.In the present case, the allegation was that the accused had captured the photographs of the complainant from his residence when she was standing on the road in front of her home.“It is also alleged when complainant noticed flash then accused entered into his building. Such allegations do not attract any of the penal provision either under Section 354C or 354D of the IPC in respect of the discussion made hereinabove relating to the essential elements required to constitute those offences,” the Court said..In 2016, the woman had lodged a complaint with the police that when she along with her daughter would go to school or market or for private tuition, the accused would watch and follow them. It was also alleged that he would capture her photographs on his camera and phone.In particular, the complainant mentioned an incident where, when she was standing on the road in front of her house, the accused was secretly taking her pictures. He fled into his house when she noticed a flash, the complaint said. On the complaint, the Police registered a case of voyeurism and stalking against the accused..Challenging the same, the accused argued that the complainant had lodged the case only to “create pressure upon the developer to deliver the other car parking space in favour of her for which they do not have any right, title and interest.”However, the complainant argued that pendency of civil dispute would not absolve the accused from criminal proceedings. The State also contended there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case..The Court analysed the provisions of voyeurism and stalking and came to the following conclusion,For Section 354C of IPC, the Court said,"Section 354C of the IPC intends to protect the modesty and decency of women and secure public order. It aims to create a safe environment for women in public places by penalizing acts that violate their modesty and instill fear in them. The provision should be interpreted broadly to advance its objectives".Similarly with regard to the offence of stalking under Section 354D of the of the IPC, the Court said,Perpetrator’s Gender: Stalking must be committed by any man. The offence is gender-specific, meaning it involves a man as the perpetrator and a woman as the victim.Unwanted Contact: The man must try to contact or contact a woman against her interest. This element involves any form of communication, be it in person or through electronic means, where the woman has expressed disinterest and the man persists in trying to establish contact.Repetition: The act of stalking must exhibit a certain degree of repeated nature. It’s not a one-time occurrence but rather involves a pattern of persistent and unwanted attention or contact. This pattern is essential to distinguish stalking from isolated or accidental interactions.Absence of Interest: There should be a clear indication of disinterest on the part of the woman. This element is crucial to ensure that the woman’s lack of consent or interest is evident and that the man is persisting despite her objections..In the present case, the Court noted that no specific evidence had been collected to attribute any of the ingredients of the two offences to the accused.As a result, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings and thus also rejected the complainant's petition seeking speedy disposal of the trial. .Advocates Sourav Chatterjee, Souvik Nandy and Soumya Nag represented the accused.Advocate Tapas Dutta and Mrityunjoy Halder represented the complainant. Additional Public Prosecutor A Sinha and Saryati Datta represented the State..[Read Judgment]