Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

A Special POCSO Court in Mumbai sentenced a 26-year-old to one year of rigorous imprsionment and imposed a fine of Rs. 1000 for peeping into a toilet used by a 5-year-old child.

The Special POCSO Judge Chaaya V Patil while convicting the accused, emphasized that the act of opening the door to watch the child proved the sexual intention to watch the child in a partially undressed state.

“The victim was attending natural call. Her anus and genital part was exposed. This victim was expecting privacy. But accused stealingly opened the door of toilet and was watching her. This shows that the accused was having sexual intention to watch the child when she was hafly naked,” the order reads.

Salim Mesbahar Shiekh faced charges under Section 354C (Voyeurism) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 (Sexual Harassment) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The incident involved the 5-year-old victim using a public ladies' bathroom while her mother went to fetch a bucket of water.

While the mother was getting water, the accused opened the door and attempted to watch the child. When the victim shouted, a crowd gathered.

The victim's mother confronted the accused, asking, "Tu Idhar kya kar raha hai?" (What are you doing here?), and the accused fled from the spot.

The accused had pleaded not guilty and contended that he was falsely implicated in the case due to a quarrel with the informant. However, independent witnesses examined by the prosecution told the court that there was no enmity between them.

The bench stated that it was a public toilet, but it had not been established on record whether it was a ladies' or gents' toilet.

The accused contended that for using the toilet, outsiders used to check if anyone was inside.

The bench, in its order, mentioned that if it was considered a gents' toilet and the accused was there to use it, then it was not necessary for him to run away.

“For the sake of moment, if it is considered that it was gents toilet and accused had been there for using it, then it was not necessary for him to ran away from the toilet when informant asked him 'idhar kya kar raha hai. When it was gents toilet, then informant might not have objected him. Therefore, it can be said that victim was attending nature call in ladies toilet, therefore, the accused cannot say that he had go on there and was checking anyone is inside,” the order stated.

Case title: State of Maharashtra vs Salim Mesbahar Shiekh