IPC 354C in the new BNS 2023

If you have been named in an FIR or notice under this section, the section number alone does not decide the outcome — the facts, the evidence and the procedure do. Many cases turn on procedural lapses, bail strategy and the exact ingredients of the offence.

Voyeurism covers watching or photographing a woman engaged in a private act where she reasonably expects privacy, and it extends to disseminating such an image. It is the provision that reaches hidden cameras in changing rooms and hotel bathrooms, and the non-consensual circulation of intimate images. Under the BNS it sits at Section 77.

What the section requires

For the offence to be made out, these ingredients have to be established:

• the accused was a man
• he watched, or captured the image of, a woman engaging in a private act, or disseminated such an image
• the circumstances were such that she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the perpetrator's behest

What changed from the IPC

The offence and its punishment are carried over from IPC 354C without substantive change. On a first conviction the punishment is imprisonment of not less than one year, which may extend to three years, together with a fine. On a second or subsequent conviction it is not less than three years, which may extend to seven, together with a fine. Both grades carry a mandatory minimum. The provision was introduced by the 2013 amendments and the BNS retains it within the consolidated group of offences against women.

How this section is distinguished from related offences

The section covers three distinct acts — watching, capturing an image, and disseminating an image — and they are not the same. The dissemination limb is what applies where an image was originally captured with consent but circulated without it, a situation that arises frequently and is expressly covered: consent to the capture does not imply consent to the distribution. Running alongside this section, the Information Technology Act contains provisions on publishing or transmitting material containing sexually explicit acts and on violation of privacy through capturing images of a private area, and prosecutions in this area commonly invoke both statutes. Where there was an assault with intent to disrobe, Section 76 applies in addition. Where the victim is a child, the POCSO Act governs and is considerably more severe.

How the case proceeds

The offence is cognizable, and the position on bail differs between the first and subsequent conviction grades. Investigation centres on the device: its seizure, the forensic extraction of images and metadata, and the establishment of who had access to it. The chain of custody of the device and the certification of the electronic evidence are the two technical issues on which these cases most often turn.

Evidence that usually decides these cases

These are electronic evidence cases and they are decided on technical questions. What matters is the seizure of the device, the hash value taken at seizure, the forensic report extracting the images and their metadata, and the certification required for electronic records to be admissible — a defect in that certification has defeated many otherwise strong prosecutions. Establishing who had access to the device and the account is the other central issue, since possession of a phone does not by itself establish who took or sent a particular image. Where dissemination is alleged, the transmission records from the platform or service are the evidence, and obtaining them promptly matters because retention periods are short. The physical circumstances of the location establish whether an expectation of privacy existed.

How courts approach sentencing

On a first conviction, imprisonment of not less than one year extending to three years, together with a fine. On a second or subsequent conviction, not less than three years extending to seven, together with a fine. Sentencing reflects whether images were merely captured or were circulated, the scale of any circulation, and whether the accused was in a position of trust in relation to the complainant.

Defences that commonly apply

The most common and most effective challenges are technical: the integrity of the seizure, gaps in the chain of custody, the absence or defect of the certificate required for electronic evidence, and the failure to establish who operated the device or account at the relevant time. On the substance, the absence of a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances is a complete answer where it can be established, and this depends on the physical setting rather than on assertion. Where dissemination is alleged, evidence that the image was circulated by someone else, or was already in circulation, goes to the heart of the charge.

How a case under this section typically progresses

The case begins with a complaint, followed by seizure of devices and their forensic examination, which is frequently the longest part of the process because laboratories are heavily loaded. The charge sheet follows the forensic report. Where dissemination is alleged, obtaining records from platforms adds further time. Applications relating to the return or preservation of devices are common early in the case, and the question of which conviction grade applies — first, or second and subsequent — is significant for bail.

Documents worth gathering early

Preserve the original device untouched rather than deleting or reinstalling anything, since alteration after seizure notice is itself damaging. Obtain the seizure memo, the hash value recorded at seizure and the complete forensic report rather than its summary, since the technical detail is where the challenges lie. Where dissemination is alleged, request the transmission and access records from the platform in writing immediately, as retention periods are short. Where an expectation of privacy is in issue, obtain photographs and the layout of the location. Records establishing who had access to the device and to any account used are central on both sides.

Note on bail and cognizability. Whether an offence is cognizable, and whether it is bailable, is set by the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, not by the BNS section itself. Because that classification decides whether police can arrest without a warrant and how bail is approached, check it for your specific section with an advocate rather than relying on a general summary.

If you have been named under this section

The central questions are whether the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances, and whether the images can be connected to you through reliable forensic evidence rather than inference from possession of a device. Where images were shared, the dissemination limb operates independently of how they were obtained, so consent to the original capture is not an answer to a charge of circulating them. The integrity of the electronic evidence — original files, metadata, certification — is where these cases are most often won or lost.

Common misunderstandings

"If she consented to the photograph, sharing it is not an offence."
It is. The dissemination limb operates separately, and consent to the capture of an image does not imply consent to its circulation.

"There is no minimum sentence."
Both grades carry a minimum — one year on a first conviction and three years on a second or subsequent one.

"It only covers hidden cameras."
It covers watching, capturing an image and disseminating an image. Watching alone, in circumstances where privacy was expected, is within the section.

"Only the Information Technology Act applies to online circulation."
Both can apply. Prosecutions commonly invoke this section together with the relevant provisions of the Information Technology Act.

Related BNS sections

• BNS 77 — Voyeurism
• BNS 76 — Assault with intent to disrobe (IPC 354B)
• BNS 78 — Stalking (IPC 354D)
• BNS 79 — Word or gesture intended to insult modesty (IPC 509)

Which code applies to your case

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 replaced the Indian Penal Code 1860 with effect from 1 July 2024, and the change is not retrospective. The date the offence is alleged to have been committed decides which code governs it. An offence alleged to have occurred on or after 1 July 2024 proceeds under the BNS. An offence alleged to have occurred before that date continues to be investigated, tried, appealed and punished under the IPC, even where the FIR was registered later. Cases from the transition period frequently cite both numbering systems, which is why the old section number remains worth knowing.

Named under this section? Ask the free AI Advocate →

General information for understanding the IPC→BNS change, not legal advice. The BNS restructured many offences — confirm the exact section, sub-section and punishment with a licensed advocate.