Introduction:

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently clarified the interpretation of stalking under Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Justice Govind Sanap delivered this judgment on December 5, 2024, while acquitting one of two accused boys charged with stalking and sexual assault of a minor girl. The court held that a single instance of following the victim does not amount to stalking under the law, requiring proof of repeated or continuous acts. The case revolved around allegations against two boys who allegedly followed the victim and later entered her home, resulting in a charge of sexual assault.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The appellants, represented by Advocates Jasprit Singh Chilotra and Neerja Chaubey, contended that the prosecution failed to establish the elements required to constitute stalking under Section 354-D of the IPC. They argued that a single instance of following the victim does not satisfy the statutory requirement of repeated or continuous actions. They further contended that the second accused was not actively involved in either the stalking or the sexual assault and merely accompanied the first accused without participating in any offence.

Additional Public Prosecutor CA Lokhande, appearing for the State, argued that the actions of the accused amounted to stalking as they involved following the victim and later entering her house. The prosecution emphasized the victim’s testimony, corroborated by her sister, which established that the first accused gagged the victim’s mouth and pressed her breast, amounting to sexual assault under the POCSO Act. Advocates Sonali Saware-Gadhwe and SH Bhatia, representing the victim, supported the prosecution’s arguments and highlighted the psychological and emotional impact on the minor victim.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice Govind Sanap meticulously analyzed the legal requirements under Section 354-D of the IPC and the relevant provisions of the POCSO Act. The court observed that the statute mandates proof of repeated or constant actions to constitute stalking. The bench clarified that a solitary instance of following the victim, as alleged in this case, does not fulfil the statutory requirement of repeated conduct and thus does not amount to stalking.

For the second accused, the court found no evidence of direct involvement in either the stalking or sexual assault. The victim’s testimony did not attribute any specific role to him apart from his presence at the scene. The court noted that during the incident of sexual assault, the second accused merely stood outside the victim’s house and did not participate in any criminal act. As a result, the court acquitted the second accused of all charges, holding that mere association with the primary accused does not establish criminal liability.

Regarding the first accused, the court held that while the offence of stalking was not made out, the charge of sexual assault was sufficiently proved. The victim and her sister provided consistent and reliable testimonies, establishing that the first accused entered the victim’s house, gagged her mouth, and pressed her breast. The court found their evidence trustworthy and corroborated by the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the court upheld the conviction of the first accused of sexual assault while acquitting him of the stalking charge.

The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory requirements while interpreting criminal offences, particularly those involving minors under the POCSO Act. The court emphasized that legal provisions must be applied with precision to ensure justice for both the accused and the victim.