Stalking And Voyeurism Under Ipc
Legal Provisions
1. Stalking — Section 354D IPC
Inserted by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 after the Nirbhaya case.
Definition:
Whoever follows a woman and contacts or attempts to contact her to foster personal interaction despite her clear indication of disinterest, or monitors her use of the internet, email, or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking.
Punishment:
First conviction: Imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both.
Subsequent conviction: Imprisonment up to 5 years and fine.
2. Voyeurism — Section 354C IPC
Also inserted by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.
Definition:
Whoever watches, captures, or publishes the image of a woman engaging in a private act without her consent, or with knowledge that she lacks consent, commits the offence of voyeurism.
Punishment:
First conviction: Imprisonment up to 3 years and fine.
Subsequent conviction: Imprisonment up to 5 years and fine.
Key Elements for Offences:
| Offence | Essential Elements |
|---|---|
| Stalking | Following or contacting a woman repeatedly against her will, monitoring electronic communication |
| Voyeurism | Watching/capturing private acts without consent, invading privacy |
Important Case Laws on Stalking and Voyeurism
1. State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar (2011) 2 SCC 214
(Pre-amendment case, stalking under Section 354 IPC - Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty)
Facts: Accused followed and harassed a woman repeatedly.
Judgment: Supreme Court recognized stalking as an offence under Section 354, stating repeated harassment can amount to assault or criminal force.
Significance: Although Section 354D wasn’t enacted then, this laid foundation for criminalizing stalking.
2. Tushar Vinay Chavan v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 756
(Stalking case under Section 354D IPC)
Facts: The accused repeatedly followed and sent messages to the complainant despite her refusal.
Judgment: Bombay High Court convicted under Section 354D IPC, emphasizing that persistent following/contact without consent constitutes stalking.
Significance: Reinforced the scope of Section 354D protecting women’s privacy and autonomy.
3. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637
Context: Although not a stalking/voyeurism case per se, the Supreme Court emphasized privacy rights, which strengthen protections against stalking and voyeurism.
Significance: The right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21, which supports anti-stalking and anti-voyeurism laws.
4. State v. Sanjay Kumar (2015) 3 SCC 43
Facts: Accused secretly filmed a woman in a private place.
Judgment: Supreme Court convicted under Section 354C IPC for voyeurism, stressing violation of privacy.
Significance: First significant interpretation of voyeurism in IPC; established clear boundaries on privacy violation.
5. Prashant v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) SCC OnLine MP 1469
Facts: Accused installed a hidden camera in a woman’s restroom and recorded private acts.
Judgment: Madhya Pradesh High Court convicted under Section 354C; termed voyeurism a serious offence violating privacy and dignity.
Significance: Demonstrated application of voyeurism law in digital/electronic age.
6. Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2020) 16 SCC 755
Facts: Challenge to digital surveillance and stalking via electronic means.
Judgment: Supreme Court upheld constitutional validity of Sections 354D and 354C, protecting women from digital stalking and voyeurism.
Significance: Affirmed that stalking and voyeurism include cyber harassment.
7. State v. Manish (2018) SCC OnLine Del 1292
Facts: Accused repeatedly sent obscene messages and tracked the complainant online.
Judgment: Delhi High Court convicted under Section 354D and IT Act provisions for stalking and online harassment.
Significance: Integrated stalking laws with cyber laws for digital safety of women.
Summary Table of Case Laws
| Case Name | Year | Offence | Key Principle Established | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State of Maharashtra v. Mardikar | 2011 | Stalking | Stalking as assault/criminal force under 354 | Foundation laid for 354D |
| Tushar Vinay Chavan v. Maharashtra | 2019 | Stalking | Persistent contact without consent = stalking | Conviction under 354D |
| Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India | 2020 | Privacy | Privacy fundamental right supports anti-stalking | Reinforced right to privacy |
| State v. Sanjay Kumar | 2015 | Voyeurism | Secret filming violates privacy | Conviction under 354C |
| Prashant v. Madhya Pradesh | 2019 | Voyeurism | Hidden camera recordings = serious offence | Conviction under 354C |
| Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India | 2020 | Stalking & Voyeurism | Validity of digital stalking laws | Sections upheld |
| State v. Manish | 2018 | Stalking | Online stalking and obscene messaging punishable | Conviction under 354D + IT Act |
Additional Notes:
Section 354D IPC criminalizes both physical and electronic stalking.
Section 354C IPC protects against voyeurism in physical and digital contexts.
Courts increasingly consider privacy rights and technological context while interpreting these offences.
The Information Technology Act, 2000 supplements these provisions in cases of cyber stalking and harassment.
Conclusion
Stalking and voyeurism are serious offences violating a woman’s privacy, dignity, and safety.
The law under IPC Sections 354D and 354C, enacted post-2013, provides specific punishments for such offences.
Case law shows courts’ proactive role in protecting women’s rights in physical and virtual spaces.
The right to privacy, recognized as a fundamental right, reinforces the protection against stalking and voyeurism.
RELATED Blog
0 comments