The Bombay High Court, Nagpur bench of Justice G.A. Sanap, was dealing with the appeal challenging the judgment passed by special judge, for stalking under section 354-D of the IPC, stated that for an offence to be punishable under section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC).
Section 354-D deals with Repeated stalking it mean that the act should be done repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by the woman.
Section 354–D states the following:
“(1) Any man who–
(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking:
Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that–
(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or
(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or
(iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.
(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
The appellant had approached the High Court after he was convicted by the subordinate court for this offence for stalking a 14 year girl.
This appeal is against the judgment or order passed by the court under section 341, 354-A, 354-D of IPC or under section 11 of POCSO ACT.
In this case the incident committed by the convicted when the victim is returning from the school with her friends on her cycle. The convicted stopped the victim and said her I love you and made demand for sex. Victim’s friend Pragati (PW4) has stated in the court that the convicted person always used to whistle and sing songs whenever they see the girls and the victim has deposed anything about repeatedly stalking her and her friends. As per the evidence states that the statement made by them is general. According to section 354-D(1) clearly indicates that the act must be done repeatedly despite clear indication of disinterest by a woman.
As per the report or statement the bench consider that the sentence of the appellant should cannot be sustained.
Case: Mahadev Narayan Bhusari v. State of Maharashtra
Bench: Justice G. A. Sanap
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2016
Written By:
Karan Suri
(Intern)
