Indian law

Sometimes, I find Indian laws utterly incapable.

This week, I was working on the story dealing with voyeurism. I found Information Technology Act very stringent but half-prepared.

The IT Act 67 says, Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished.

But on the use of obscene material for self-gratification, the law is silent.

So imagine that there is a peeping tom in the mall, clicks images of a woman’s private moments from trial room and keep it for self use.

Can this voyeurist be charged ? I don’t think so.

Taking pictures without knowledge in private places is infringement of privacy, hence, can be charged. In this case however, he is in mall, a public place, although the trial room isn’t. Second, he is using the images for self-gratification.

IPC 509 that deals with outraging modesty of woman can put him in jail. But then the punishment under IPC 509 isn’t as severe as IT act.

Under such circumstances, an intelligent officer will implicate the accused different way. The officer will make sure that those images on computer.

Well, transmission has been done, so as the crime.
Another case: A person having sex with woman below 16 even with her free consent is rape. The age of consent for sex, as per IPC 376, is 16 years while her official age for marriage is 18.

Interestingly, Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen but is below 16, is not rape.

No comments: