This ruling came while hearing appeals filed by two boys convicted for stalking and allegedly sexually assaulting a minor girl. The judge’s observation set aside their conviction for stalking but upheld other charges against one of them.
Bombay: The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled that following a girl or victim on a single occasion does not amount to stalking under Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act which was not replaced by the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) when the case that the court was hearing was filed.
Justice Govind Sanap delivered this decision on December 5, 2024, while acquitting two boys initially convicted of stalking a minor girl.
Justice Sanap clarified that “a solitary instance of following the victim would not be sufficient to make out this offence.”
He further stated: “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.”
This ruling came while hearing appeals filed by two boys convicted for stalking and allegedly sexually assaulting a minor girl. The judge’s observation set aside their conviction for stalking but upheld other charges against one of them.
Brief Facts
The victim of the case was a 14-year-old girl hailing from Maharashtra’s Akola, who alleged that the two accused had harassed her over a period of several months.
The prosecution in the case claimed that the victim’s younger sister had been witness to one of the accused entering the victim’s house forcibly in August 2020, groping her and threatening her to not tell anyone about the violent act.
Earlier, a trial court, had convicted both of the accused under Sections 354 (outraging modesty), 354-D (stalking), 452 (house trespass), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, as well as Sections 7 and 11 of the POCSO Act, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment ranging from three to seven years.
One of the accused in the case was acquitted of all charges. The other, continued to be charged under Section 354-A IPC (sexual harassment) and Section 7 of the POCSO Act (sexual assault) as the court found credible evidence of him sexually assaulting the girl.
However, the charges under Sections 354-D IPC (stalking), 452 IPC (house trespass with preparation for assault), and 506 IPC (criminal intimidation) were removed.
Additionally, the court noted that in January 2020, the first accused entered the girl’s house, gagged her mouth, and pressed her breast. The second accused was present during this incident but stood outside the house. Given this, the court acquitted the second accused of all charges, including stalking and sexual assault.
The court found no evidence of active participation by the second accused. Justice Sanap noted: “The second accused only accompanied the first accused boy, while he followed the victim when she went to fetch water from the well.”
The second accused also received a sentence reduced to 2 years and six months, which he had already served. His fine was also reduced.
Justice Sanap emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove repeated or constant following, as required by Section 354-D IPC.
The court upheld the sexual assault charge against the first accused, relying on the victim’s testimony and corroborative evidence. Justice Sanap stated: “The evidence of the victim and her sister, both of whom testified that the first accused entered her house and gagged the victim’s mouth and pressed her breast, was found to be reliable and trustworthy.”
Representing Counsels:
Advocates Jasprit Singh Chilotra and Neerja Chaubey appeared for the Appellants.
Additional Public Prosecutor CA Lokhande represented the State.
Advocates Sonali Saware-Gadhwe and SH Bhatia were appointed to represent the Victim.
Case Title: Amit Chavan vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal 364 of 2022)
