Single Instance Of Following A Girl Doesn’t Constitute Stalking: Bombay High Court

Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court Clarifies Stalking Laws

 

In a notable judgment, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court ruled 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 persistent behavior is essential to establish the offense.

 

Case Background

The case involved the harassment of a 14-year-old girl from Akola, Maharashtra, who alleged prolonged harassment by two individuals. One of the accused reportedly entered her house in August 2020, groped her, and threatened her against reporting the incident. The victim’s younger sister corroborated the events.

 

The trial court convicted the accused under various IPC sections, including 354 (outraging modesty) and 354-D (stalking), as well as the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Sentences ranged from three to seven years.

 

Legal Issues Examined

The High Court focused on four key aspects:

 

1. Definition of Stalking: Section 354-D IPC requires proof of repeated or sustained behavior. A single act does not qualify.

 

 

2. Delay in Filing the FIR: Although the complaint was delayed by nine days, the court considered the family's fear of threats credible.

 

 

3. Credibility of Evidence: The victim’s testimony and corroboration by her sister were assessed.

 

 

4. Roles of the Accused: The court differentiated between the actions of the two accused.

 

 

 

Court’s Observations

Justice G.A. Sanap ruled that the alleged solitary act of following the victim did not meet the criteria for stalking under Section 354-D IPC. On the delay in filing the FIR, the court noted that while such delays raise concerns, credible evidence can outweigh this factor.

 

Court’s Verdict

 

1. First Accused: Acquitted of all charges due to insufficient evidence of direct involvement.

 

 

2. Second Accused:

 

Convicted under Section 354-A IPC (sexual harassment) and Section 7 of the POCSO Act (sexual assault), with credible evidence of groping.

 

Acquittal on charges of stalking (Section 354-D IPC), house trespass with assault (Section 452 IPC), and criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC). The trespass charge was reduced to a lesser offense under Section 451 IPC.

 

 

 

3. Sentence: The second accused was sentenced to time already served (two years and six months) and a reduced fine.

 

 

 

This ruling highlights the need for repeated actions to establish stalking and underscores the importance of credible evidence in cases involving delayed FIRs.