Following a girl only once doesn’t amount to stalking, says Bombay High Court​on January 5, 2025 at 10:57 am

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

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

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a single instance of following a girl does not meet the legal criteria for stalking under Section 354(D) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which requires repetitive or persistent behaviour to constitute an offence.

The ruling came from Justice GA Sanap while hearing pleas involving two 19-year-old men accused of sexual harassment and trespassing in a case concerning a 14-year-old girl.

“One solitary instance of following a girl cannot be categorised as stalking under the IPC. The law necessitates proof of repeated or persistent acts to establish such an offence,” Justice Sanap said during the hearing.

The case dates back to January 2020, when the primary accused followed the minor girl and expressed a desire to marry her. Despite the girl’s clear rejection and her mother’s intervention with the accused’s family, he continued to harass her.

On August 26, 2020, the accused allegedly trespassed into the girl’s home, gagged her, and touched her inappropriately. The second accused was allegedly stationed outside the house during the incident.

The trial court had convicted both men on multiple charges under the IPC and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, including stalking, sexual harassment, house trespass, and criminal intimidation.

Upon review, the High Court noted that the stalking charge rested solely on a single incident in which the accused followed the girl to a river. Justice Sanap clarified that stalking under Section 354(D) necessitates evidence of repetitive or continuous acts, such as following, watching, or attempting to contact the victim through physical or digital means.

While the court acquitted the second accused of all charges, citing the absence of any active role beyond standing guard outside the house, it upheld the primary accused’s conviction under Section 354(A) of the IPC for sexual harassment and Section 8 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.