The Bombay High Court revised the sentencing in a criminal revision application. Applicant was initially convicted for offenses under Sections 279, 354D, and 337 of the IPC. However, the court exonerated him of stalking (Section 354D) due to insufficient evidence, reducing his sentence to time already served for rash and negligent driving (Section 279) and causing injury (Section 337). The court emphasized that the mere act of overtaking and gestures without direct evidence of stalking does not meet the legal criteria for the offense under Section 354D.

1. Incarceration & Appeal (Paras 1-2)

• Fact: Rakesh Shukla was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment by the District Court for three months. He has been in custody since 06.09.2024 and filed a revision application, seeking urgent hearing due to his incarceration.
• Legal Impact: The court heard the revision application and addressed his concerns regarding the sentence.

2. Prosecution's Case (Paras 3-6)

• Fact: The prosecution’s case relied on two main witnesses: the complainant (PW-1) and a taxi driver (PW-2). The incident occurred on 27.05.2017 when Shukla allegedly followed the complainant, leading to an accident due to rash driving.
• Legal Impact: The evidence presented by the prosecution was examined, including inconsistencies between the complainant's initial statement and her deposition.

3. Delay in FIR & Evidence Analysis (Paras 6.1-6.9)

• Fact: There was a three-day delay in filing the FIR, which the complainant attributed to a family event. The court analyzed inconsistencies in statements and cross-examination, questioning the reliability of the complainant’s testimony.
• Legal Impact: The court considered the delay in filing the FIR and lack of corroborating evidence, such as missing CCTV footage.

4. Stalking Allegations & Dismissal (Paras 10-13)

• Fact: The prosecution alleged that Shukla’s actions constituted stalking under Section 354D. However, the court found that the evidence did not support the claim, as the actions described (overtaking and gestures) did not meet the legal threshold for stalking.
• Legal Impact: The court quashed the conviction under Section 354D, stating there was no proof of intention or repeated personal interaction.

5. Rash Driving & Negligence (Paras 14-16)

• Fact: The court upheld the conviction under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC, concluding that Shukla’s rash driving led to the complainant’s accident. The evidence of negligent overtaking and the complainant’s injuries substantiated this conviction.
• Legal Impact: The court affirmed that Shukla’s rash driving was a clear act of negligence, justifying the charges under Sections 279 and 337.

6. Sentence Reduction (Paras 19-21)

• Fact: The court acknowledged Shukla’s incarceration and reduced his sentence from three months to 36 days, the period already served. His family responsibilities and resignation from his job were also taken into account.
• Legal Impact: The court emphasized that further imprisonment would amount to injustice, releasing Shukla after time served.

Relevant Acts and Sections:

1. Indian Penal Code (IPC)
   • Section 279: Rash driving or riding on a public way.
   • Section 354D: Stalking.
   • Section 337: Causing hurt by endangering life or personal safety of others.
2. Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)
   • Section 248(2): Acquittal or conviction order in a trial.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offense of stalking under Section 354D. The actions of honking and overtaking, without direct interaction or repeated attempts to foster personal contact, do not constitute stalking. However, Shukla’s act of rash driving, which led to an accident and injuries, was sufficiently proven. Thus, his conviction for rash and negligent driving was upheld, while the sentence was reduced based on time already served.