Skip to main content

Watching Porn Privately Is Not An Offence

Image

On 05.09.2023, Justice PV Kunhikrishna of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7421 of 2022 titled Aneesh Vs. The state of Kerala has decided on a very interesting and substantial question of law relating to the criminality of watching porn videos in private time without exhibiting it to others, wherein, the Petitioner/Accused was seen standing on the roadside by the Police/Complainant, watching obscene videos in his mobile phone hence he was arrested and his mobile phone was seized. Thereafter, the police filed a charge sheet, alleging offence punishable under Section 292 of the IPC, before the concerned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence based on the Final Report. The Petitioner/Accused approached the High Court praying for the quashing of FIR and the Charge Sheet.

Justice Kunhikrishna held that “6. I am of the considered opinion that, watching of an obscene photo by a person in his privacy by itself is not an offence under Section 292 IPC. Similarly, watching of an obscene video by a person from a mobile phone in his privacy is also not an offence under Section 292 IPC. If the accused is trying to circulate or distribute or publicly exhibits any obscene video or photos, then alone the offence under Section 292 IPC is attracted. In this case, even if the entire prosecution case is accepted in toto, no offence under Section 292 IPC is made out against the petitioner”.


The Hon’ble Justice referred to a judgment delivered by the High Court of Kerala in the case of Ramesh Krishnan v. State of Kerala reported as [1999 (2) KLT 806], wherein, the scope of Section 292(2)(a) of the IPC was considered and it was held that in order to constitute an offence under Section 292(2)(a) of the IPC, it must be a case where the obscene object was sold, let on hire, distributed or publicly exhibited or put into circulation. Production or possession of the object for any of the above-said purposes will also constitute an offence. 


The Hon’ble Justice went on to further say that “9. But before parting with this case, I must remind the parents of minor children in our country. Watching pornography may not be an offence. But if minor children start to watch porn videos, which are now accessible in all mobile phones, there will be far reaching consequences. The innocent parents will give mobile phones to their minor children to make them happy. Instead of delicious food made by the mother and a cake cutting ceremony on birthdays of children, parents are giving mobile phones with internet access to their minor children as a gift on such occasions to make them happy. The parents should be aware of the danger behind it. Let the children watch informative news and videos from the mobile phones of their parents in their presence. Parents should never hand over mobile phones to minor children to make them happy and thereafter complete their daily routine works in their house allowing unsupervised use of mobile phones by children. Let the children play cricket or football or other games they like during their leisure time. That is necessary for a healthy young generation who are to become the beacons of hope of our nation in the future. Instead of purchasing food from restaurants through ‘swiggy’ and ‘zomato’, let the children taste the delicious food made by their mother and let the children play at play grounds at that time and come back home to the mesmerizing smell of mother’s food. I leave it there to the wisdom of the parents of minor children of this society”.


Interestingly, the Hon’ble Justice started the judgment with his opinion that "God designed sexuality as something for a man and a woman within marriage. It is not only lust but also a matter of love and for having children too". However, he immediately noted that "a male and female who have attained majority, having sex with consent is not an offence". It was further opined that “Consensual sex between a man and woman is not an offence in our country, if it is within their privacy. A court of law need not recognise consensual sex or watching of a porn video in privacy because these are within the domain of the will of society and the decision of legislature. The duty of the court is only to find out whether it amounts to an offence”.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

All Cases of Sexual Intercourse Based on a False Promise of Marriage NOT Covered under Section 69 of the BNS

Recently, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against Yash Dayal, a Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) player, under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for engaging in sexual intercourse on the false pretext of marriage. The complainant alleged that, relying on Yash Dayal’s false promise of marriage, she consented to sexual intercourse. Notably, the FIR was not registered under Section 64 (rape) of the BNS. This raises the question: Are all cases of sexual intercourse based on a false promise of marriage (vitiated consent) now exclusively covered under Section 69 of the BNS? Prior to the enactment of the BNS, sexual intercourse induced by a false promise of marriage was punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and classified as rape. This classification stemmed from Section 375 of the IPC, which defines rape as, inter alia, sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent, and Section 90, which states that consent given under a misconceptio...
Post a Comment
Read more

Requirements for Criminal Liability under Sections 406 and 420 IPC

The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Ashok Kumar Jain v. The State of Gujarat and Another (2025 INSC 614), delivered on May 1, 2025, is a significant exposition on the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), to quash a First Information Report (FIR) in cases where allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are deemed to be a misuse of criminal process for civil disputes. The judgment meticulously analyzes the alleged offenses' legal ingredients, the commercial transaction's factual matrix, and the documentary evidence, ultimately concluding that the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process. Factual Background The case arises from a commercial transaction between the appellant, Ashok Kumar Jain, a director of Maayu Import and Export Ltd., a Sri Lankan company, and the second respondent, a proprietor of Ansh Prints, a textile business in Surat, Gujara...
Post a Comment
Read more

Advocates Vs. CAs/CSs/CMAs

This article deals with the exclusive right to practise law and tribunal representation and the principles relating to a Harmonious Construction of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Companies Act, 2013 Introduction  The ongoing controversy concerning the right of non-advocate professionals, namely Chartered Accountants(CAs), Company Secretaries(CSs), and Cost and Management Accountants(CMAs), to appear and argue matters before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) raises fundamental questions touching the statutory monopoly over the practice of law in India. This post examines the competing statutory claims under the Advocates Act, 1961 and Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013, applies the doctrine of harmonious construction, and concludes that Section 432 does not, and constitutionally cannot, confer any independent or parallel right to practise law upon non-advocates before tribunals. Background of the Dispute Recently, t...
Post a Comment
Read more