Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Bhushan Wadaskar, was convicted by the Sessions Court, Amravati, for the offence of stalking under Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on 23 July 2018, the appellant caught hold of the victim girl's hand in a bus and later at a bus stop, expressed love, and threatened suicide if she did not reciprocate. The victim shouted for help, and an unknown person intervened. On 25 July 2018, the victim saw the appellant on a motorcycle while going to tuition and returned home scared. The FIR was lodged on 26 July 2018. The trial court convicted the appellant, leading to this appeal. The Bombay High Court examined the evidence and found that the essential ingredient of 'repeated' conduct under Section 354-D was not satisfied. The incident on 23 July was a single episode, and the sighting on 25 July did not involve any act by the appellant. The court also noted material inconsistencies in the evidence of the victim and her mother, particularly the mother's failure to inform the husband about the incident for two days, which cast doubt on the prosecution's case. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Stalking - Section 354-D Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Essential Ingredients - The prosecution must prove that the accused repeatedly followed, contacted, or attempted to contact the woman despite a clear indication of disinterest by her. A solitary instance of catching hold of hand and expressing love, without any subsequent repeated conduct, does not constitute the offence of stalking. The court held that the evidence of the victim and her mother showed material inconsistencies and the conduct of the mother in not informing the husband for two days created doubt about the occurrence. (Paras 7-13) B) Evidence - Delay in FIR - Conduct of Witnesses - The delay of two days in lodging the FIR and the mother's failure to inform the father of the incident immediately were considered significant circumstances casting doubt on the prosecution case. The court held that in ordinary circumstances, a mother would not conceal such a serious incident from her husband. (Paras 11-13) C) Criminal Law - Age of Victim - Proof - The birth certificate (Exh.15) was a public document and not challenged by the appellant. The court accepted that the victim was below 18 years on the date of incident, but this did not affect the outcome as the main charge of stalking failed. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the evidence on record proves the offence of stalking under Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code, particularly the element of 'repeated' follow-up despite clear indication of disinterest by the victim.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 02.01.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati in Special (POCSO) Case No. 235 of 2018 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code. His bail bonds stand discharged.
Law Points
- Stalking under Section 354-D IPC requires repeated acts despite clear indication of disinterest
- solitary incident insufficient
- delay in FIR and suppression of incident from father create doubt
