In a landmark judgment, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has clarified the legal interpretation of 'stalking' under Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court ruled that a single instance of following a girl does not constitute the offense of stalking as defined by the statute. This decision was rendered by Justice Govind Sanap on December 5, 2024, during the acquittal of two young men previously convicted of stalking a minor girl.
Case Background
The case involved two boys accused of following a minor girl and subsequently assaulting her. The prosecution alleged that the first accused had followed the victim when she went to fetch water from a well and later, in January 2020, visited her house, gagged her mouth, and pressed her breast. The second accused was alleged to have accompanied the first accused during these incidents but did not engage directly in the assault.
Legal Analysis and Judgment
Justice Sanap emphasized that, according to Section 354-D of the IPC, for an act to qualify as stalking, the accused must have "repeatedly or constantly followed, watched, or contacted" the victim, either directly or through electronic means. The court noted that a solitary instance of following does not meet the threshold of 'repeated' or 'constant' behavior required to establish the offense of stalking.
In the judgment, Justice Sanap stated, "It is to be noted that in order to attract the offense 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 offense of stalking, a solitary instance of following the victim would not be sufficient to make out this offense."
Acquittal of the Second Accused
The court observed that the victim's testimony did not attribute any specific role to the second accused beyond his presence during the incidents. During the assault in January 2020, the second accused was reportedly standing outside the victim's house and did not participate in the assault. Consequently, the court acquitted him of all charges, including stalking and sexual assault.
Conviction of the First Accused
Regarding the first accused, while the court ruled out the charge of stalking due to the lack of repeated behavior, it upheld his conviction for sexual assault. The testimonies of the victim and her sister were found to be reliable and trustworthy, confirming that the first accused had entered the victim's house, gagged her mouth, and pressed her breast. Justice Sanap concluded that these actions constituted sexual assault under the relevant legal provisions.
Implications of the Judgment
This judgment provides a significant clarification of the legal definition of stalking under Section 354-D of the IPC. By distinguishing between a single act and repeated behavior, the court has set a precedent that could influence the adjudication of similar cases in the future. The ruling underscores the necessity for the prosecution to establish a pattern of behavior to prove the offense of stalking, rather than relying on isolated incidents.
Representation
The appellants were represented by Advocates Jasprit Singh Chilotra and Neerja Chaubey. Additional Public Prosecutor C.A. Lokhande appeared for the State, while Advocates Sonali Saware-Gadhwe and S.H. Bhatia were appointed to represent the victim.
Case Reference
The case is titled "Amit Chavan vs. State of Maharashtra."
This judgment highlights the importance of precise legal definitions and the need for the prosecution to meet specific criteria to establish offenses under the IPC. It also reflects the judiciary's role in interpreting laws to ensure that convictions are based on clear and consistent legal standards.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.