Peeping Into Woman’s Toilet Cubicle Is Voyeurism, Even in Public Washroom: Himachal Pradesh HC

Emphasising that using a toilet is a private act, the Himachal Pradesh High Court recently upheld the voyeurism conviction against a guard who was caught peeping into a public washroom being used by a woman.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the accused, Pritam Singh, who was employed as a Chowkidar (watchman) by the Municipal Committee for a public toilet in Solan.

The Court categorically rejected his argument that the incident occurred in a "public place" and was therefore "inherently improbable" as it pointed out that the woman "was expected to be alone while performing this private act".

The alleged incident

The incident, which led to the conviction of the accused under Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), occurred on April 10, 2018.

According to the prosecution, the informant and her friend visited a public toilet in Solan. While inside, the informant noticed a broken window, originally meant for an exhaust fan, and felt she was being watched. She alerted her friend, who was waiting outside.

When the friend went to investigate the rear of the toilet, she caught the accused guard peeping into the washroom through the window.

Upon being confronted, the accused went to his room located near the toilet and bolted the door from inside. He refused to come out despite a crowd gathering and the women demanding an explanation.

‘A Private Act’: High Court's Crucial Observations

In his revision petition, the accused argued that the washroom was a public place with a public path running behind it, rendering the prosecution's story "inherently improbable". He further claimed that there were no independent witnesses to corroborate the allegations against him.

Justice Kainthla, however, dismissed these arguments as it noted that the use of the toilet by the informant was a profoundly private act.

The bench observed that "she was expected to be alone while performing this private act" and that the guard's conduct of peeping through the broken window blatantly violated her privacy.

The High Court also found the guard's subsequent behavior highly incriminating. The Court noted that if the accused was truly innocent, he would have come out of his room and offered a plausible explanation, such as looking for something near the window, rather than bolting his door and hiding from the public.

The bench also found no reason to doubt the testimonies of the informant and her friend, noting that the defence had failed to prove any prior enmity or motive for false implication.

While confirming the conviction, the High Court found, however, that the 3-month punishment and a fine of ₹2,000 imposed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Solan, on the accused were inadequate.

Justice Kainthla highlighted that the offence of voyeurism under Section 354C of the IPC carries a mandatory minimum sentence of one year, which may extend to three years.

The High Court observed: "Therefore, the learned Trial Court had imposed a sentence which was less than what had been prescribed by the legislature, and the learned Trial Court had shown excessive sympathy to the accused."

However, the High Court refrained from enhancing the punishment, noting that the State had not filed any appeal seeking an enhancement of the sentence.

Case Title: Pritam Singh v. State of H.P.

Date of Judgment: July 10, 2026

Bench: Justice Rakesh Kainthla