Following a girl only once doesn’t amount to stalking, says Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has declared that a one-time occurrence of pursuing a girl does not satisfy the legal definition of stalking as per Section 354(D) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which necessitates continuous or habitual conduct to establish an offense.

The judgment was issued by Justice GA Sanap during the consideration of petitions related to two 19-year-old individuals accused of sexual harassment and trespassing in a case involving a 14-year-old girl. “A single incident of pursuing a girl cannot be classified as stalking according to the IPC.” “The law requires evidence of multiple or ongoing actions to prove such a crime,” Justice Sanap noted during the proceedings. This case goes back to January 2020, when the main accused tracked the minor girl and showed an intention to marry her. Notwithstanding the girl’s obvious refusal and her mother’s involvement with the accused’s family, he persisted in harassing her.

On August 26, 2020, the suspect reportedly broke into the girl’s residence, silenced her, and fondled her inappropriately. The second accused was reportedly positioned outside the residence during the incident.

The trial court found both men guilty on several counts under the IPC and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, such as stalking, sexual harassment, house trespass, and criminal intimidation. Upon review, the High Court observed that the stalking charge was based exclusively on one incident where the accused trailed the girl to a river. Justice Sanap explained that stalking, as defined under Section 354(D), requires proof of ongoing or repeated behavior, including actions like following, observing, or trying to communicate with the victim via physical or digital methods.

Although the court cleared the second accused of all allegations, stating there was no active involvement other than guarding outside the residence, it confirmed the main accused’s conviction under Section 354(A) of the IPC for sexual harassment and Section 8 of of the POCSO Act for sexual assault.

However, the High Court modified the main accused’s sentence, taking into account his young age and the two-and-a-half years he had already spent in custody.