The Bombay High Court has declared that a one-time occurrence of following a girl does not fulfill the legal definition of stalking as per Section 354(D) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which necessitates ongoing or repeated conduct to be considered an offense.
The decision was made by Justice GA Sanap during the hearing of petitions related to two 19-year-old individuals charged with sexual harassment and trespassing in a case involving a 14-year-old girl.
“A single occurrence of trailing a girl cannot be classified as stalking according to the IPC. The statute requires evidence of ongoing or habitual actions to demonstrate such an offense,” Justice Sanap stated during the session,” Justice Sanap said during the hearing.
Also read: Year 2025: An year of Space Exploration
The incident originates from January 2020, when the main suspect stalked the underage girl and voiced a wish to marry her. Despite the girl’s obvious refusal and her mother’s involvement with the offender’s family, he persisted in stalking her.
On August 26, 2020, the suspect reportedly entered the girl’s residence without permission, restrained her, and handled her inappropriately. The second accused was reportedly positioned outside the residence during the event.
The trial court convicted both individuals on several counts under the IPC and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, such as stalking, sexual harassment, trespassing, and criminal intimidation.
After examination, the High Court observed that the stalking allegation was based entirely on one event in which the defendant tracked the girl to a river. Justice Sanap explained that stalking, as defined in Section 354(D), requires proof of repeated or ongoing actions, including pursuing, observing, or trying to reach out to the victim via physical or online methods.
The court cleared the second accused of all allegations, stating he had no active involvement apart from standing guard outside the residence. However, it confirmed the conviction of the primary accused under Section 354(A) of the IPC for sexual harassment and Section 8 of the POCSO Act for sexual assault.
Nonetheless, the High Court altered the sentence of the primary accused, considering his youth and the two and a half years he had previously served in detention.
