Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court recently ruled that a single instance of unwanted contact cannot amount to stalking under Section 354-D of Indian Penal Code (IPC), stating repeated acts over a period are necessary to draw criminal liability.
Justice Govinda Sanap delivered the ruling while acquitting a 19-year-old from Wardha district, who was convicted by Amravati sessions court for stalking a minor girl and sentenced to one-year rigorous imprisonment.
“An offence of stalking cannot be invoked on basis of a solitary incident. The word ‘repeatedly’ indicates recurrence over a continuous period. Fostering personal interaction must be done repeatedly to attract the offence,” Justice Sanap observed, while allowing the youth’s appeal.
The case originated from an incident on July 23, 2018, when the youth allegedly grabbed the girl’s hand twice and threatened to commit suicide if she did not reciprocate his feelings. The prosecution argued the accused developed an affection towards the girl and attempted to force a relationship.
However, the high court found significant inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony and pointed to the unexplained delay in filing of First Information Report (FIR). Justice Sanap noted contradictions between the victim’s statement and those of other witnesses, creating doubts about the prosecution’s version of events.
“The evidence on record does not demonstrate a continuous course of conduct. The prosecution’s failure to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt leads to the appellant’s acquittal,” the court stated.
Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, Justice Sanap reiterated delays in lodging FIRs often result in exaggerations or afterthoughts. “It is held that on account of delay, the report not only loses spontaneity but also risks introducing an embellished or concocted version,” he remarked.
The court further emphasised Section 354-D, introduced through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, was intended to address rising cases of stalking and harassment. However, for the provision to apply, there must be a deliberate and repeated attempt to contact or follow the victim against their will.
The court also highlighted procedural lapses during investigation, including absence of corroborative evidence to support the victim’s allegations. “Contradictory evidence of the witnesses indicates that after due deliberation, facts were exaggerated and embellished. This further weakens the prosecution’s case,” the court said.
================================================================
Key Takeaways from Bombay High Court’s Verdict on Stalking
Acquittal of Youth: 19-year-old from Wardha, convicted by Amravati sessions court, was acquitted due to lack of evidence of repeated conduct
Inconsistencies in Evidence: Court found contradictions in victim’s testimony and delays in filing FIR, raising doubts on prosecution’s case.
Legal Interpretation: Judgment clarified stalking requires deliberate and recurring attempts to contact or follow the victim against her will
Procedural Lapses: Court criticised investigative flaws and absence of corroborative evidence, leading to youth’s acquittal and discharge of bail bonds
