Solitary Instance Of Following Girl Would Not Be Sufficient To Make Out The Offence Of Stalking: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court has held that a solitary instance of following a girl would not be sufficient to make out the offence of stalking.
The Court acquitted the Appellants who were accused of stalking a 14-year-old girl under Sections 354D of the IPC. The Nagpur Bench explained that the prosecution must be able to prove that the victim was “repeatedly or constantly followed, watched or contacted…either directly or through electronic, digital media” in order to attract the offence of stalking.
A Single Bench of Justice G.A. Sanap observed, “It is to be noted that in order to attract the offence of stalking, the prosecution must prove that the accused repeatedly or constantly followed, watched or contacted a child either directly or through electronic, digital media. In view of this mandatory requirement of the offence of stalking, a solitary instance of following the victim would not be sufficient to make out this offence.”
Advocate Jasprit Singh Chilotra represented the Appellants, while APP C.A. Lokhande appeared for the Respondents.
The Appellants challenged their conviction under Sections 354, 354A, 354D, 452, 34 and 506(I) of the IPC and Sections 7, 8, 11, and 12 of the Protection of the Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 by the Trial Court.
The victim’s mother had lodged an FIR alleging that her daughter was followed by one of the Appellants while she went to the river to fetch water.
The Court explained that in order to attract the offence of stalking, the prosecution must prove that the accused repeatedly or constantly followed, watched or contacted a child either directly or through electronic, digital media.
The Bench noted the victim’s statement that one of the Appellants pushed the door and entered her house after which he gagged her mouth and pressed her breasts, while the other Appellant was allegedly waiting outside the house.
“Perusal of their cross-examination would show that no material has been elicited in their cross-examination to doubt their credibility and trustworthiness. I have no reason to discard and disbelieve their evidence. On the basis of this evidence, the offence under Section 354-A of the IPC and under Section 7 r/w Section 8 of the POCSO Act has been made out. In my view, therefore, the conviction for these offences does not warrant interference,” the Court stated.
Consequently, the Court held, “The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by learned Extra Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge…is modified.”
Cause Title: Amit v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-NAG:14232)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates Jasprit Singh Chilotra and Neerja Chaubey
Respondents: APP C.A. Lokhande; Advocates Sonali Saware-Gadhwe and S.H. Bhatia