Accidental Exposure While Answering Nature’s Call Does Not Constitute Sexual Harassment Under Section 75(2) BNS: Karnataka High Court

"Exposure of the body and intentional exposure of the body to a woman for a sexual purpose are not synonymous. Criminal law punishes the latter when the statutory ingredients are fulfilled; it cannot mechanically criminalise the former merely because circumstances unfortunately bring it within the sight of another." Karnataka High Court, in a significant ruling delivered on September 1, 2026, held that an accidental or unintended exposure of private parts, lacking sexual intent or overtures, cannot be equated to the offence of sexual harassment under Section 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while quashing criminal proceedings initiated against a petitioner, emphasized that the mere fact that a woman witnessed such an act does not automatically satisfy the statutory ingredients of a penal offence.

The case arose from a complaint filed in January 2026, alleging that the petitioner had exposed his private parts in a public place near Hebbal, Bengaluru. The complainant asserted that she witnessed the act while walking past the petitioner. The petitioner contended that he was in urgent need of a restroom and, finding none, had attempted to relieve himself in a secluded spot, unaware of the complainant's presence.

The primary question before the court was whether the allegations, even if accepted at their face value, satisfied the essential ingredients of Section 75(2) of the BNS. The court was further tasked with determining whether a criminal trial could be sustained in the absence of evidence demonstrating a "sexual intent" or a deliberate act directed toward the complainant.

The Court observed that for an act to qualify as sexual harassment, it cannot be viewed in isolation from the surrounding circumstances. The judicial analysis underscored that the presence of mens rea—the intention to commit the crime—is a prerequisite that must be discernible from the facts of the case.

Distinguishing Intent From Circumstance

The bench noted that the petitioner was admittedly answering the call of nature. The court pointed out that the complaint failed to allege that the petitioner beckoned, followed, or made sexually colored remarks toward the complainant. Instead, the reaction of the petitioner upon noticing the complainant was one of shock, which the court found to be diametrically opposed to the assertion of sexual intent.

"The criminal law cannot be permitted to travel on conjecture from exposure to intention, and from intention to sexual intent, when the foundational facts necessary to sustain that journey are themselves absent."

Absence of Statutory Ingredients

The court reiterated that exposure of the body and intentional exposure for a sexual purpose are two distinct concepts. By elevating a "fleeting incident" or an unfortunate happenstance to the level of criminality without the requisite intent, the prosecution risks turning the legal process itself into a form of punishment.

Court Clarifies Scope of Section 75(2) BNS

The court held that a person answering nature’s call who is inadvertently observed by a woman does not, without further evidence of deliberate misconduct, satisfy the threshold of the offence. The ruling clarifies that not every socially unacceptable or embarrassing circumstance falls within the scope of a penal provision.

"Where the very substratum of the prosecution, taken at its highest, does not disclose the ingredients of the offence alleged, continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law and would result in patent miscarriage of justice."

Application of Bhajan Lal Principles

Applying the landmark guidelines set out in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the court determined that this was a fit case to exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Finding that the allegations were inherently improbable and lacked the necessary ingredients to constitute a crime, the court quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 14887/2026 pending before the 7th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.

The decision serves as a significant precedent against the mechanical registration of criminal cases based on incidents that lack the essential element of sexual intent, thereby protecting individuals from unnecessary litigation arising from purely accidental circumstances.

Date of Decision: 01 September 2026