Gujarat High Court
Sejalben W/O Pareshkumar vs State Of Gujarat on 6 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 223 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
========================================================
SEJALBEN W/O PARESHKUMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
========================================================
Appearance:
SWAPNESHWAR GOUTAM(9051) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS.C.M.SHAH, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 06/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
(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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
accused and after perusing the documents on record, the
learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated
01.07.2024, was pleased to acquit the accused for the alleged
offence.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment
and order of acquittal, the appellant - original complainant has
filed the present appeal mainly stating that the complainant has
proved the case beyond reasonable doubts but the learned
Trial Court has not appreciated that the accused was stalking the
minor daughter with bad intention and the evidence of the
victim has not been appreciated by the learned Trial Court in
the proper manner and in the true spirit. There are no material
contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses which can
affect the case of the prosecution but without appreciating that
the victim who has attained enough maturity of thought or
understanding so as to judge the nature of the act that it was
indecent behaviour has not been properly appreciated by the
learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court has not appreciated
that the victim is able to understand the act of voyeurism and the
learned Trial Court ought to have considered the sensitiveness
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
of the incident and the act of voyeurism on the part of the
accused that has been proved beyond reasonable doubts. The
learned Trial Court has not considered the contents of the FIR
and has failed to consider the presumption, which is in nature
and is required to be drawn against accused in cases filed under
the POCSO Act and by not drawing presumptions and not
appreciating the evidence on record, and hence, the judgment
and order of acquittal is completely erroneous. The victim has
identified the accused and such admission does not require
material evidence. The victim has narrated the entire episode,
trauma and agony suffered by the act of the accused and such
act should be strictly viewed which is the aim and object of the
legislature in Section-11 of the POCSO Act and Section 354(C) of
IPC. The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the
accused has not produced any evidence to show that any false
allegations were leveled against him by the complainant and the
learned Trial Court has not considered the statement of the
victim with regard to the act of laughing of the accused with a
bad intention which could be understood by the minor victim.
Moreover, the learned Trial Court has not considered that on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
08.11.2016 the appellant and the father of the victim went to
meet the Police Commissioner, Vadodara, where it was
categorically mentioned that the respondent no.2 was stalking
the minor with bad intention whenever the complainant and her
daughter used to step out of the house and the accused used to
come out of his house in boxer shorts and would be singing and
dancing and this aspect has been completely missed out by the
learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court has wrongly
discarded the reliable and trustworthy evidence of the appellant
and victim and the impugned judgment suffers from the vices of
patent illegality, absolutely wrong reasoning and perverse
approach to the facts of the case, misconception of law and
applicability of the provisions of the Statutes, and hence, the
appeal be admitted and the impugned judgment and order be
quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Swapneshwar Gautam
for the appellant and learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the
respondent no.1 - State.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Swapneshwar Gautam for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
appellant has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the
prosecution on record and has filed the entire evidence in the
form of a paper book. Learned advocate submits that the
learned Trial Court has not considered that the prosecution
witnesses which include the complainant, her husband, the
minor victim and three neighbours have all stated that the
accused was stalking and staring at the minor girl in a wrong
manner and the act of the accused is proved beyond reasonable
doubts. The learned Trial Court has not considered these
aspects and in the evidence, it is proved that the incident had
occurred on 05.03.2017 at 8:15 a.m., and thereafter, the
complainant had immediately gone to the Police Station and had
given a written complaint to the police, and thereafter, the FIR
was lodged. The learned Trial Court has not considered that the
father of the victim has also supported the case of the
prosecution and has categorically stated that he was standing in
the door way of his house and he had witnessed the incident.
The victim has also identified the accused and has stated that the
accused was standing in his house and he was looking at her in a
bad manner but the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
evidence of the victim and her parents and the other witnesses
in a proper manner. Learned advocate further submits that the
evidence proves that the respondent no.2 was stalking the
minor victim and was engaged in an act of watching the victim
and the entire act of the respondent no.2 who is the perpetrator
of the crime falls within the definition of Section 354(C) of the
IPC and the offence of voyeurism is clearly made out. Learned
advocate further submits that it is settled law that minor
discrepancies and inconsistencies in the deposition of the victim
is not relevant when there are other evidences available on
record of the case but the same have not been considered by
the learned Trial Court. Learned advocate further submits that
the evidence of the victim can be said to be of a sterling witness
as the evidence is of a very high quality and calibre and can be
accepted at its face value without any hesitation but the learned
Trial Court has merely relied on minor omissions and
contradictions and has passed the impugned judgment and
order of acquittal, and hence, the appeal must be admitted.
6. Learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the respondent no.1 -
State has submitted that the entire evidence on record does not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
prove the offence of voyeurism under Section 354(C) of the IPC
as the definition of voyeurism itself states that the accused must
be watching a woman engaged in a private act. As per the case
of the complainant, the victim was ready to go to school and she
was stepping outside of her house to sit in the school van and
her mother had accompanied her and the accused who is
residing exactly opposite the house of the complainant was
standing in his house. There is no iota of evidence that at the
time when the accused was watching the victim she was
engaged in any private act. As per the explanation-1 of Section
354(C) of the IPC and there was no act that was being done by
the victim which is not ordinarily done in public. The learned
Trial Court has considered the entire evidence and has
discussed the entire evidence in great detail in the judgment
and has also considered that there are cross cases filed between
the parties and the present case has been filed as a counter
blast to the cases filed against the complainant and her husband
by the accused. The learned Trial Court has also discussed the
legal aspects and has rightly passed the impugned judgment
and order of acquittal and there is no scope for any interference
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
in the impugned judgment and order. Learned APP further
submits that the State has not received any request for filing an
appeal and as per the communication dated 22.07.2029 no
appeal is proposed to be filed by the State, and hence, the
appeal is not required to be admitted.
7. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal
against acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by
limitation that no interference has to be made in the order of
acquittal unless after appreciation of the evidence produced
before the Trial Court, it appears that there is some manifest
illegality or perversity which could not have been possibly
arrived at by the Court. It is also a settled principle that there is
no embargo on the Appellate Court to review the evidence but,
generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with as
the presumption of innocence of the accused is further
strengthened by the order of acquittal. The golden thread which
runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal
cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced
in the case of the prosecution i.e. (i) guilt of the accused and (ii)
his innocence, the view, which is in favour of the accused,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
should be adopted, and if the trial Court has taken the view in
favour of the accused, the Appellate Court should not disturb
the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate Court can interfere
with the judgment and order of acquittal only when there are
compelling and substantial reasons and the order is clearly
unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to
conclusion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must.
8. As per the settled principles of law, the evidence of
the prosecution on record is re-appreciated and PW-1 Sejalben
Pareshkumar Shah examined at Exh.9 is the complainant and
mother of the victim and has stated that the incident has
occurred on 05.03.2017 at around 8:15am near her house. Her
minor daughter was going to sit in her school van and while she
left her house the accused, who was residing in the house
opposite her house, was watching the minor daughter in a bad
manner. The minor daughter asked him what was he looking at
and the complainant also asked the accused why he was looking
in such manner but the accused started laughing and
immediately the complainant dialed 181 and went to the Police
Station and filed the complaint, which is produced at Exh.10. In
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
the cross - examination, the witness has stated that there is a
compound in front of her house and the school van was waiting
outside the compound. The place between both the houses is
constantly teeming with persons passing by and the house of the
accused is exactly opposite the house of the complainant. If the
complainant steps out of her house, she would be able to see the
house of the accused, and in the complaint, she did not state that
the accused was looking at her daughter in a bad manner. In the
complaint, she has also not mentioned that she had dialed 181
and they have facilities for parking and security in their society.
She had given the complaint on 05.03.2017 and had filed a
written application to the police on the same day. The accused
had filed a complaint against them on 29.11.2016, which was
pending for trial.
8.1. PW-2 Pareshkumar Kanhaiyalal Shah examined at
Exh.12 is the husband of the complainant and father of the minor
victim and he has stated that on 05.03.2017 at around 8:15am his
daughter was going to school and the accused was watching his
daughter and at that time he was standing in his door way. He
had dialed 181 and they came and took the accused to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
police station. His wife had filed the FIR, and at that time, his
wife had also given a copy of the application dated 29.10.2016 to
the police station regarding the quarrel about bursting crackers
and on 08.11.2016, they had gone to meet the Police
Commissioner and a copy of the application dated 08.11.2016
was also given to the police. In the cross-examination, the
witness has admitted that his wife would accompany his
daughter till the school van and in his statement before the
police he did not mention that he was standing in his door way.
He had accompanied his wife to the Police Station while filing
the complaint and the police had recorded his statement at the
same time.
8.2. PW-3 the minor victim has been examined at Exh.13
and has stated that on the day of the incident she was going to
school to appear for her examinations and the school van had
reversed in front of the house of the accused and was parked in
front of her house. When she and her mother came out, the
accused was standing inside his house and was looking at her in
a bad manner and when she was about to sit in the school van he
smiled and she asked him why was he laughing. She sat in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
van and she does not know what had happened thereafter. In
the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that the house
of the accused is situated exactly opposite their house and if
they step out of the house they could see the house of the
accused. The accused had filed a case against her father and her
father too had filed a case against the accused and the accused
was angry as her father had filed a case against him. She does
not remember the name of the driver of the school van and the
van would come right up to the gate of their house. Her mother
would accompany her till the school van and make her sit in the
school van. Her father was present with her when the police had
recorded her statement and the police had also discussed about
the incident with her father. The witness has admitted that there
is a difference between a person laughing and looking in a bad
manner.
8.3. PW-4 Parulben Bhadreshbhai Rai examined at Exh.14
is an eye-witness as per the case of the prosecution but the
witness has clearly stated that she was not present at the time of
the incident and she cannot say how the accused was looking at
the minor daughter. The witness has not supported the case of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
the prosecution and has been declared hostile. In the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that she was in her house at the time of the
incident.
8.4. PW-5 Prabhudas Shankarbhai Patel examined at
Exh.15 is the neighbour of the parties and he has stated that the
accused used to mock the victim and would look at her and
laugh and the father of the victim had dialed 181 and called the
police. In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that
his house is situated four houses away from the house of the
victim, and at the time of the incident, he was going to pick
flowers.
8.5. PW-6 Manojbhai Parshottambhai Patel examined at
Exh.16 is also a neighbour of the parties who has stated that the
accused would often look at the minor victim and laugh at her
and the reason was the cases filed between them. The father of
the victim had dialed 181 and the police had come but at the
time of the incident he had gone to the temple. He was going
from the temple and he does not know anything about the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
incident and the police has not recorded his statement. In the
cross-examination, the witness has admitted that merely if a
person was looking at the other person, it cannot be said that
any molestation has taken place.
8.6. PW-8 Hasmukhbhai Nanjibhai Patel examined at
Exh.21 is the Sub-Register, who has produced the birth
certificate of the victim at Exh.22 and the date of birth of the
victim is 21-06-2001.
8.7. PW-9 Baliyabhai Nayakabhai Rathwa examined at
Exh.25 is the PSO who has registered the complaint and has
produced a copy of the extract of the Station Diary at Exh.26.
8.8. PW-7 Sandeepbhai Vishnubhai Vasava examined at
Exh.17 is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated the
procedure undertaken by him during investigation. In the cross-
examination, the witness has admitted that there were CCTV
cameras fixed at the place of incident but the complainant did
not give any copy of the CCTV footage. When the complainant
had come to file the complaint at the Police Station, she had
stated that the CCTV cameras are fixed in her compound from
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
which the opposite compound would be clearly seen but she
has not given the copy of the CCTV footage. The complainant
had stated that she would prepare a CD of the footage and
submit the same in the Police Station but she has not done so.
During investigation, the deposition of the statement of the
driver of the school van has not been recorded. The witness has
admitted that there were many neighbors of different
communities including college going girls staying on rent in the
society but he has not recorded their statements and has not
recorded the statements of Chirag Patel, Neetaben Solanki etc.
9. The accused has been charged with an offence under
section 354(C) of the IPC and Section 11(iv) of the POCSO Act
and it is appropriate to reproduce Section 354(C) of the IPC and
Section 11(iv) of the POCSO Act, which reads as under :
Section : 354-C of the IPC
"354C. Voyeurism :- 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 at
the behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such image
shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of
either description for a term which shall not be less than one
year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be
liable to fine, and be punished on a second or subsequent
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term
which shall not be less than three years, but which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1.--For the purpose of this section, "private act"
includes an act of watching carried out in a place which, in the
circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide
privacy and where the victim's genitals, posterior or breasts
are exposed or covered only in underwear; or the victim is
using a lavatory; or the victim is doing a sexual act that is not
of a kind ordinarily done in public.
Explanation 2.--Where the victim consents to the capture of
the images or any act, but not to their dissemination to third
persons and where such image or act is disseminated, such
dissemination shall be considered an offence under this
section."
9.1. Section ii(iv) of the POCSO Act:
"11. Sexual harassment :- A person is said to commit sexual
harassment upon a child when such person with sexual
intent :-
(i) XXX XXX XXX
(ii) XXX XXX XXX
(iii) XXX XXX XXX
(iv) repeatedly or constantly follows or watches or contacts
a child either directly or through electronic, digital or
any other means; or"
10. Voyeurism refers to the act of watching, capturing or
disseminating the image of a person, particularly a woman
engaged in a private act without her consent in circumstances
where she has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The word
"voyeur" is derived from the French term "voir", meaning to
see. In legal terms, it signifies an intrusion into a person's
privacy and dignity by observing or recording them during
private moments. The offence of voyeurism was inserted in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
IPC by the Criminal Amendment Act, 2013 and the key elements
of voyeurism are that the act involves watching, recording or
distributing images or videos, while the victim is engaged in a
private act such as dressing or using the restroom etc. while the
victim has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The act is done
without consent and the purpose is typically sexual gratification.
To constitute an offence under Section 354(C) of the IPC, the
prosecution has to prove that the offender was watching or
recording a woman's private act which includes acts like
photographing, filming or observing through hidden devices.
The woman must be engaged in a private act such as
undressing, using a restroom or engaging in sexual activity
where she expects privacy. The situation must be one where the
woman reasonably expects not to be observed. The act of
watching, capturing or disseminating must be without the
woman's consent and even sharing or publishing images
captured with consent if done without permission amounts to
voyeurism. So, the key factor is invasion of privacy and absence
of consent.
11. In the instant case, the accused has been charged
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
with the offence under section 354(C) of the IPC mainly on the
ground that the accused who was residing in front of the house
of the victim was watching her with a bad intention while the
victim was going out of her house to sit in the school van which
was parked in front of her house. To constitute an offence of
voyeurism as defined under Section 354(C) of the IPC, it is
essential that the victim at the time of the offence must be
engaged in a private act. Explanation-1 to Section 354(C) of the
IPC defines the private act which includes an act of watching
carried out in a place which in the circumstances would
reasonably be expected to provide privacy and where the
victim's genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered
only in an underwear or the victim is using a lavatory or the
victim is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done
in public. In the entire evidence on record, there is no iota of
evidence that the victim was doing any private act but as per the
case of the prosecution, the victim was stepping out of her house
to sit in a school van to go to school and at that time, she would
be fully dressed in her school uniform and not engaged in any
private act. Considering the evidence on record, there are
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
major contradictions in the deposition of the complainant PW-1
Sejal Pareshkumar Shah, PW-2 Pareshkumar Kanelal Shah and
PW-3 the victim. In fact, the mother and father of the victim do
not state the exact place where the accused was standing but
the victim states that he was standing inside his house. There is
no panchnama of the place of offence on record and if the FIR is
perused, the complainant has stated that the accused was
standing near his house. It is not clear as to where the accused
was at the time of the incident and prior to registering of the FIR,
the complainant had given a written application to the police
wherein she has stated that while her daughter was going to sit
in the van, the accused was watching her with a bad intention
but her daughter was not paying attention and this was noticed
by her mother i.e. the complainant. In the written application,
the complainant has stated that she told the accused not to do so
and he started crying, but his wife did not come out of the
house, and at that time, as it was morning time, everyone was in
their own homes. Hence, in the written application, the
complainant has clearly stated that there were no eye-witnesses
to the incident. The neighbours PW-4 Parulben Bhadreshbhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
Rai and PW-7 Manojbhai Prashothambhai Patel have not
supported the case of the prosecution and have deposed that
they are not eye-witnesses to the incident. PW-5 Prabhudas
Shankarbhai Patel who is a neighbour and residing four houses
away from the house of the parties has given an exaggerated
version and has stated that the accused was mocking and
making fun of the victim which is not the case of the
complainant. It is also on record that the complainant had access
to a CCTV footage and at the time of filing of the complaint, she
had told the Investigating Officer that she would give a copy of
the CCTV footage in a CD but the same was not given by her.
Moreover, if the incident has occurred, the best independent
witness would be the van driver but the victim and the
complainant have both stated that they do not know the name of
the driver of the van. In the evidence, it has also come on record
that the parties were having disputes between them since
29.10.2016 when an incident about bursting of crackers had
taken place and the complainant had given a written application
to the Vaghodiya Police Station on 30.10.2016. Thereafter, the
accused had filed a complaint under Sections 323, 294(B), 506(2)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
and 11(iv) of the IPC on 07.11.2016, which was registered at
Panigate Police Station II-CR No.542 of 2010 on 07.11.2016 for
the offence that had occurred on 29.10.2016 regarding the
bursting of crackers. Thereafter, the accused had also filed a
complaint under Section 143, 323, 354 of the IPC and Section
3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Atrocity Act against the victim and
her parents on 03.12.2017 which was registered at Panigate
Police Station I-C.R.No.0276 of 2017. It is on record that cases
have been filed by the accused against the complainant and her
husband and the complainant has filed this case against the
accused. In the first instance, the complainant has in the written
application given to the Police Station has stated that the victim
was not aware of the presence of the accused and considering
the contradictions in the deposition of the victims in the
deposition of the victim and her parents, is no evidence that any
such offence had taken place.
12. Considering the settled legal position and the facts of
the case, the act of a person glancing or looking at a victim who
is about to sit in a school van in a public place does not
constitute voyeurism because the act of sitting in a school van is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
a public and non-private act. At the time of the act, the victim is
not engaged in an act that involves undressing, using a lavatory
or any form of intimate or private activity. The public space like
a street where others are present does not provide the victim a
reasonable expectation of complete privacy and the offence of
voyeurism would be committed only when privacy is expected
such as bathrooms, bedrooms or changing rooms. As per the
settled principle of law, the offence of voyeurism requires an
intention or act of watching or capturing for sexual satisfaction.
A mere glance or look even if momentary without such intention
or act cannot amount to voyeurism. In voyeurism, the core
element is the absence of consent for which for being watched
or recorded in a private act and if a person is simply being
looked at in a public setting does not meet this requirement. In
the instant case, the act of the accused glancing or looking at the
victim about to sit in a school van does not amount to voyeurism
as it fails to satisfy the essential ingredient of a private act and
the reasonable expectation of privacy. Such conduct does not
attract any criminal liability under Section 354(C) of the IPC as
the offence of voyeurism is confined strictly to acts that intrude
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
upon the personal, private and intimate sphere of an individual.
The act in question occurred in a public place and the victim
was not engaged in any private or intimate act and there is no
evidence on record to show that the accused had attempted to
intrude the privacy of the victim. The essential ingredients of
Section 354(C) of the IPC are not satisfied and the act of the
accused does not attract criminal liability under the provisions
of the act, and hence, the accused cannot be held guilty for the
offence of voyeurism either directly or through electronic digital
or any other means.
13. As far as the offence under Section 11(iv) of the
POCSO Act is concerned, a person is said to commit sexual
harassment upon a child when he repeatedly or constantly
follows or watches or contacts a child either directly or through
electronic, digital or any means. In the entire evidence, there is
no iota of evidence that the accused had with any sexual
intention repeatedly or constantly followed or watched or
contacted the victim either directly or through any electronic,
digital or any other means. As stated by the complainant, the
incident has occurred on 05.05.2017 at 8:15am when the minor
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
victim was going from her house to sit in their school van and
besides this incident, there are no other details of any other
incident narrated by the complainant or the victim that the
accused was repeatedly or constantly following or watching the
victim.
14. In view of the above, the learned Trial Court has
appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and
there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial
Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the
considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely
justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against
them. The findings recorded by the Trial Court are absolutely
just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been
committed by the learned Trial Court and this Court is in
complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and
the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial
Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment and the order passed by the learned 5th Additional
Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Special (POCSO) Case No. 26 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/223/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
2020 order dated 01.07.2024 and the present appeal is devoid of
merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed at the stage of
admission.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
F.S.KAZI.....
