Introduction

The Bombay High Court recently let off a man on charges of stalking arguing that even though the accused followed the woman home, she protested when he turned the music loud and grooving to it did not amount to stalking under Indian laws.

Facts of the Case

The complainant said that the petitioner, on a motorcycle, trailed her, sounded his horn and made uncomfortable gestures to her, leading to her losing control of the scooter. For this, she got injured on her elbow, on her shoulder and thigh. She also said that the petitioner was wearing headphones with loud music playing which made her feel more in danger. She mentioned this and a taxi operator affirmed her evidence showing that the petitioner was driving in the other lane.

The trial court convicted the petitioner under sections 279 (rash and negligent driving), 354D (stalking), and 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life) of Indian penal code. He has been convicted of stalking that attracted a three-month jail term and was convicted of risky driving that attracted a similar term of three months and convicted of causing hurt that attracted a medium sentence of three years imprisonment. The case was affirmed by the District Court, but the three years imprisonment sentence given for causing hurt was slashed to three months.

Petitioner’s Argument

Counsel for the petitioner said that there were contradictions in the statements made by the complainant; she filed the First Information Report (FIR) after three days stating it got involved in a family wedding on that day. The defense protested that this had a bearing on the credibility of the witness. Further, the petitioner averred that the prosecution did not prove the ingredients of the offense of stalking since the complainant and the petitioner were strangers, and the latter never tried to get into contact with the former.

Respondent’s Argument

For the state, Public Prosecutor added that the petitioner followed the complainant, honked and made gestures to scare her. The prosecution also sought to rely on the statement made by a taxi driver, who saw the petitioner driving in the complainant side of the road, in as much as to support the fact that the petitioner was reckless and was placing the life of the complainant in danger.

Court’s Observation

Justice Milind Jadhav stated on a Bench that the only movement made by the petitioner was head shaking or ‘grooving his neck’, while listening to loud music. The Court further stated that this conduct did not make any attempt to directly or indirectly communicate with the complainant of wish to attract her attention, which is necessary for a conviction of stalking under Section 354D of IPC. Justice Jadhav said employing the verb ‘follow’ and relying on the case law of Kaushal Kishore Mishra & Anr v State of Jharkhand & Ors he said: “In my opinion, such an action on the part of Applicant does not fall into any one of the attributes or parts of the offence of stalking as enumerated in Section 354D of IPC.”

But the Court also observed that the petitioner was reckless in his conduct when was on the motorcycle. The use of headphones while holding a loud music session and constantly changing lanes in the road was considered reckless.

Court’s Judgment

The Court set aside the charge of stalking vide Section 354D but affirmed the convictions of rash and negligent driving under Sections 279/337 of IPC. The Court also ordered that since the total years of imprisonment reached 36 days of the petitioner who was in custody, the rest of the overall sentence should be served as the time already served, thus the petitioner was released. The Court also considered the status of the petitioner who is a married man with three children for whom he is the bread winner.

– Credits: By Anaida Khan Pursuing 5th year of BALLB (Hons.) from Dharmashashtra National Law University, Jabalpur