In a significant ruling, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court clarified that a solitary instance of following a girl does not amount to stalking under Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court emphasized that repeated or sustained behavior is essential to establish the offense of stalking.
The judgment came in response to appeals filed by two individuals challenging their convictions for multiple offenses under the IPC and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). The High Court partly allowed their appeals, acquitting them of some charges but upholding convictions for others.
Background
The case revolved around the harassment of a 14-year-old girl from Akola district, Maharashtra. The victim alleged that the accused had harassed her over several months. According to the prosecution, one of the accused forcibly entered the girl’s home in August 2020, groped her, and threatened her with dire consequences if she reported the matter. The victim’s younger sister, who was present in the house, corroborated the events.
The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 354 (outraging modesty), 354-D (stalking), 452 (house trespass), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, as well as Sections 7 and 11 of the POCSO Act, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment ranging from three to seven years. The accused filed separate appeals challenging the verdict.
Legal Issues
The High Court examined several key issues in the case:
1. Applicability of Stalking Laws: Section 354-D IPC requires evidence of repeated or constant following, watching, or contacting the victim to constitute stalking.
2. Delay in Filing the FIR: The complaint was filed nine days after the incident, raising questions about its credibility.
3. Credibility of Evidence: The court assessed whether the victim’s testimony and supporting evidence were sufficient to uphold the convictions.
4. Differentiation of Roles: The court evaluated the specific roles of the accused in the alleged offenses.
Observations by the Court
Justice G.A. Sanap observed that stalking, as defined under Section 354-D IPC, necessitates repeated or sustained behavior. A solitary instance of following the victim to a river, as alleged in this case, did not fulfill the criteria for stalking. The court noted, “The prosecution must prove that the accused repeatedly or persistently followed or watched the victim. A single act of following cannot constitute the offense.”
On the delay in lodging the complaint, the court acknowledged that the victim and her family faced threats from the accused, which explained their hesitation in approaching the police. Justice Sanap stated, “Delay in filing the FIR, while raising suspicion, is not fatal if the evidence is otherwise credible and trustworthy.”
The Court’s Decision
1. First Accused: The court acquitted him of all charges, finding no evidence of direct involvement in the alleged acts. It held that his presence outside the victim’s house during the incident was insufficient to establish criminal liability.
2. Second Accused: – The court upheld his conviction under Section 354-A IPC (sexual harassment) and Section 7 of the POCSO Act (sexual assault). It found credible evidence that he had forcibly groped the victim.
– However, the conviction under Sections 354-D IPC (stalking), 452 IPC (house trespass with preparation for assault), and 506 IPC (criminal intimidation) was set aside. The court downgraded the trespass charge to Section 451 IPC (house trespass), which carries a lighter sentence.
3. Sentence Modification: The second accused was sentenced to the imprisonment already served (two years and six months) for the offenses under Section 354-A IPC and Section 7 of the POCSO Act. The fine was also reduced.
