Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a criminal revision application filed by Rakesh Matasharan Shukla challenging his conviction by the Trial Court and upheld by the District Court for offences under Sections 279 (rash driving), 354D (stalking), and 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The incident occurred on 27.05.2017 when the complainant (PW-1) was riding her scooty on Palm Beach Road, Nerul. She alleged that the applicant, riding a motorcycle, followed her while honking, made gestures, and rode dangerously close to her, causing her to fall and sustain injuries. The FIR was lodged three days later on 30.05.2017. The Trial Court convicted the applicant, and the District Court upheld the conviction while reducing the sentence under Section 337 IPC from three years to three months due to a typographical error. The applicant was in custody from 06.09.2024. The High Court examined the evidence and found material contradictions between the complainant's FIR statement and her deposition, including improvements regarding stalking and the manner of the accident. The court noted that the complainant admitted in cross-examination that she dashed into a stationary Fortuner vehicle, which contradicted the prosecution's version. Additionally, the statements of two taxi drivers (PW-2 and another) were recorded on 04.05.2017, which was before the date of the incident, making them ante-dated and unreliable. The Investigating Officer (PW-4) admitted that CCTV footage did not cover the incident spot. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of stalking under Section 354D IPC, as there was no evidence of repeated following or contact despite disinterest. The rash and negligent driving charge under Section 279 IPC was also not proved, as the complainant's own admission and lack of reliable evidence created reasonable doubt. The delay in filing the FIR was not satisfactorily explained. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the conviction, and ordered the applicant's immediate release.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Stalking - Section 354D IPC - Ingredients - The offence of stalking requires repeated following, attempts to contact, or fostering personal interaction despite disinterest shown by the victim. Mere overtaking and gesturing on a public road by a stranger does not constitute stalking. Held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of stalking beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 6.5, 7). B) Criminal Law - Rash and Negligent Driving - Section 279 IPC - Proof - To establish rash and negligent driving, the prosecution must show that the accused drove in a manner dangerous to the public, causing injury. In this case, the complainant's own admission that she dashed into a stationary vehicle and the lack of CCTV footage covering the incident created reasonable doubt. Held that the conviction under Section 279 IPC was not sustainable (Paras 6.6, 6.8, 7). C) Evidence Law - Ante-Dated Statements - Reliability - Witness statements recorded before the date of the incident are inherently unreliable and cannot be used as evidence. The statements of PW-2 and another taxi driver were dated 04.05.2017, while the incident occurred on 27.05.2017. Held that such ante-dated statements vitiate the prosecution case (Para 6.7). D) Criminal Procedure - Delay in FIR - Effect - A delay of three days in filing the FIR, when the explanation (impending marriage) is not supported by cogent evidence, weakens the prosecution's case and raises suspicion about the veracity of the complaint. Held that the unexplained delay is fatal to the prosecution (Para 6.1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the applicant under Sections 279, 354D, and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable in law given the contradictions in evidence and the ante-dated witness statements.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal revision application, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and upheld by the District Court, and ordered the applicant to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Stalking under Section 354D IPC requires repeated following or contact despite disinterest
- not mere overtaking on road
- Rash and negligent driving under Section 279 IPC requires proof of dangerous driving causing injury
- Ante-dated witness statements are unreliable
- Delay in FIR without proper explanation weakens prosecution case
- Material improvements in deposition compared to FIR statement create doubt.
