MUMBAI: In a rare conviction for the charge of voyeurism, a special Pocso court convicted and sentenced a 26-year-old man to one-year rigorous imprisonment for watching a five-year-old child using a public toilet in 2015.
When the child’s mother returned after fetching a bucket of water, she saw the accused staring at the minor defecating. “The victim was attending nature’s call.Her… genital part was exposed. This victim was expecting privacy. But the accused opened the door of the toilet and was watching her. This shows that the accused was having sexual intention to watch the child when she was half naked,” special judge C V Patil said.
The accused was also fined Rs 2,000. The judge said the fine amount is to be paid to the victim as compensation.
Under Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code, any man who watches or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person will be found guilty of the voyeurism charge.
For a first conviction under the charge, the maximum sentence is three years imprisonment and for a subsequent one it is seven years.
The accused was also found guilty of the sexual harassment charge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act.
Among the five witnesses examined by the prosecution were the child, her mother, a neighbour, a panch witness and the investigating officer.
The mother submitted that she knew the accused as they were neighbours. On March 23, 2015, around 9.45pm, she left the child in the toilet to attend nature’s call and went out to fetch a bucket of water. She said when she returned to the cubicle she saw the accused was looking inside by opening the door. Therefore, she shouted. A neighbour turned up and caught the accused. The mother further said when she asked him why he was ogling at the child, he ran away. An FIR was subsequently lodged and the accused was arrested.
The woman identified the accused during the trial over video-conferencing.
The child who was 13 by the time she deposed before the court, corroborated her mother’s version. She recalled the accused staring at her.
Denying the allegations, the accused claimed that he was falsely implicated as there was a quarrel over his use of the common toilet.
The judge refuted his claims and said even for the sake of argument, if it is considered that it was a “gents toilet”, it was not necessary for him to run away when the mother questioned him.
When the child’s mother returned after fetching a bucket of water, she saw the accused staring at the minor defecating. “The victim was attending nature’s call.Her… genital part was exposed. This victim was expecting privacy. But the accused opened the door of the toilet and was watching her. This shows that the accused was having sexual intention to watch the child when she was half naked,” special judge C V Patil said.
The accused was also fined Rs 2,000. The judge said the fine amount is to be paid to the victim as compensation.
Under Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code, any man who watches or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person will be found guilty of the voyeurism charge.
For a first conviction under the charge, the maximum sentence is three years imprisonment and for a subsequent one it is seven years.
The accused was also found guilty of the sexual harassment charge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act.
Among the five witnesses examined by the prosecution were the child, her mother, a neighbour, a panch witness and the investigating officer.
The mother submitted that she knew the accused as they were neighbours. On March 23, 2015, around 9.45pm, she left the child in the toilet to attend nature’s call and went out to fetch a bucket of water. She said when she returned to the cubicle she saw the accused was looking inside by opening the door. Therefore, she shouted. A neighbour turned up and caught the accused. The mother further said when she asked him why he was ogling at the child, he ran away. An FIR was subsequently lodged and the accused was arrested.
The woman identified the accused during the trial over video-conferencing.
The child who was 13 by the time she deposed before the court, corroborated her mother’s version. She recalled the accused staring at her.
Denying the allegations, the accused claimed that he was falsely implicated as there was a quarrel over his use of the common toilet.
The judge refuted his claims and said even for the sake of argument, if it is considered that it was a “gents toilet”, it was not necessary for him to run away when the mother questioned him.