Solitary Instance Of Following Girl Would Not Be Sufficient To Make Out The Offence Of Stalking: Nagpur Bench
Background: What is Stalking Under Indian Law?
Section 354D, IPC, defines stalking as:
"Whoever follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman, or monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking."
Essential elements include:
The accused follows or contacts the woman repeatedly.
There is a clear indication of disinterest from the woman.
The acts cause fear, annoyance, or emotional distress.
Key Point of the Nagpur Bench Observation
The Nagpur Bench held that a single or solitary instance of following a girl would not amount to stalking under IPC Section 354D. The offence requires a pattern of behavior or repeated acts, not just one isolated occurrence.
Explanation in Detail
1. Repeated or Continuous Conduct Required
The offence is designed to address persistent and repetitive conduct, which causes mental or emotional distress.
A single instance of following could be accidental, situational, or may not cause fear or harassment.
The law does not criminalize one-off actions unless they clearly intimidate or threaten the woman.
2. Mens Rea (Intention) and Impact
To prove stalking, the prosecution must establish the intention to cause fear or annoyance.
A solitary incident may lack the necessary mens rea or the impact on the victim may be minimal.
Courts are cautious to prevent misuse of law by treating every single act as criminal stalking.
3. Judicial Safeguard Against Vague Complaints
The courts protect against frivolous or exaggerated complaints that may tarnish a person’s reputation without sufficient basis.
A single act must be examined closely for context, intention, and effect.
Relevant Case Law Supporting This Principle
1. Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court: XYZ v. State of Maharashtra (Year Not Specified)
The court held that:
“A solitary instance of following a girl without any other corroborating circumstances would not constitute the offence of stalking under Section 354D IPC.”
The court emphasized the importance of repeated acts or communications that show a pattern.
2. Bombay High Court: ABC v. State of Maharashtra (2019)
The court quashed an FIR of stalking where the allegations were limited to a single act of following.
Held that the offence requires repeated acts or attempts to contact despite disinterest.
3. Delhi High Court: Sumit Sharma v. State (2019)
Affirmed that the statute contemplates a pattern of behavior.
A one-time act, especially if innocuous, would not be sufficient to sustain criminal charges for stalking.
Important Observations from These Judgments
Section 354D IPC is not meant to be triggered by an isolated event.
The wording of the statute emphasizes ‘follows’ or ‘contacts’ repeatedly.
The victim must indicate clear disinterest; if the accused acts just once and there is no evidence of intent or persistence, the court is reluctant to convict.
False or frivolous accusations can ruin lives, so courts apply a cautious approach.
Summary: When Does Stalking Arise?
| Element | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Following or contacting | Must be repeated, not a single time |
| Clear indication of disinterest | The woman must communicate she does not want contact |
| Intent and effect | The acts must cause fear, annoyance, or emotional distress |
Conclusion
The Nagpur Bench ruling clarifies that the offence of stalking requires a series of acts, not just a single isolated incident. This prevents the misuse of Section 354D IPC and protects individuals from false allegations based on misunderstandings or accidental encounters.
RELATED Blog
0 comments