1. Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the State’s appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C., affirming the acquittal of the respondent who had been charged with stalking, criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint, assault, and sexual harassment under Sections 354A, 354D, 323, 341 and 506 of the Penal Code. The Court held that the prosecution’s case suffered from material contradictions, unexplained improvements, absence of corroboration and failure to examine crucial witnesses, making it impossible to sustain conviction. The Court concluded that the Magistrate correctly extended the benefit of doubt and found no perversity warranting interference in appeal.
2. Facts
The prosecution case began with a complaint lodged on 22 July 2015 by a Class XI student alleging that the accused, a neighbour, had been following her to school for 15 days, stopping her on the way, and threatening to stab or disfigure her if she did not tell him “I love you.” She further alleged that he gave her two SIM cards and compelled her to insert one into her maternal uncle’s mobile phone, from which he sent repeated messages saying “I love you.”
She claimed fear prevented her from reporting the matter earlier and that after sustained mental pressure she finally shared the ordeal with her family, who accompanied her to the police station. FIR No. 883/2015 was registered for offences relating to stalking, intimidation, insult to modesty and wrongful restraint. After investigation, charges were framed under Sections 354A, 354D, 323, 341 and 506 IPC.
At trial, four prosecution witnesses were examined: the prosecutrix, two Investigating Officers, and the MHC(M) who produced the deposited SIM card. The Magistrate acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The State appealed.
3. Issues
- Whether the trial court erred in discarding the prosecutrix’s testimony as unreliable due to improvements and omissions.
- Whether non-examination of critical witnesses such as the prosecutrix’s maternal uncle undermined the prosecution case.
- Whether unproven electronic evidence, including the SIM cards and alleged messages, could sustain conviction for stalking and intimidation.
- Whether appellate interference with an acquittal was warranted in the absence of perversity or misappreciation of evidence.
4. Appellant-State’s arguments
The State contended that the Magistrate had failed to appreciate the testimony of the prosecutrix in the correct perspective. It argued that she was a young student, frightened and vulnerable, and that minor inconsistencies should not overshadow the substance of her allegations. The State emphasised that she had consistently maintained that the accused stalked and threatened her and that her testimony required no corroboration as long as it was of sterling quality.
It relied on precedents including Munsim (2009), O.M. Baby (2012), and Mohd. Imran Khan (2012), urging the Court to recognise that a conviction can rest solely on the testimony of a prosecutrix if it inspires confidence. The State therefore sought reversal of acquittal and conviction of the accused.
5. Respondent’s position
Though unrepresented during appeal arguments, the respondent had denied all allegations during trial under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He contended that prosecution witnesses failed to prove stalking or threats; that no physical assault occurred; that the SIM evidence was unverified; and that the State had withheld key witnesses, including the prosecutrix’s uncle, whose phone allegedly received messages. His defence was that the prosecution case was wholly uncorroborated and inconsistent.
6. Analysis of the law
The Court reaffirmed that appellate interference with acquittal is justified only where the judgment is perverse, ignores material evidence or adopts an impossible view. Here, the Court found the Magistrate’s reasoning fully aligned with settled principles.
(a) Improvements fatal to credibility
The prosecutrix never alleged sexual assault in her complaint or Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement; yet during trial she added for the first time that the accused “used to tease” her by pulling her chunni and salwar. This unexplained improvement—absent from all earlier statements—was held to seriously dent her credibility.
(b) Missing corroboration for electronic evidence
The prosecution theory relied heavily on the SIM card allegedly given by the accused and “I love you” messages sent thereafter. Yet:
• the maternal uncle’s phone was never seized,
• no Call Detail Records were produced, and
• the messages were never proved.
These were glaring evidentiary gaps in a case founded on communication-based harassment.
(c) Failure to examine crucial witnesses
The maternal uncle, Ravi Kant Pandey—essential to proving the SIM card narrative—was never examined. Nor were any family members who allegedly accompanied the prosecutrix to the police station. This suppression of best evidence created serious doubt.
(d) Unexplained conduct undermines allegation of fear
The prosecutrix admitted voluntarily inserting the SIM card and exchanging messages. This contradicted the claim that she was being forcibly stopped on the way to school. The Court noted that conduct inconsistent with stated fear undermines the allegation of coercion.
(e) Standard of proof not met
While acknowledging that the prosecutrix’s testimony may alone suffice for conviction, the Court held that the testimony must be of sterling quality—credible, consistent, unimpeached. In this case, improvements, omissions and lack of corroboration rendered it unreliable.
7. Precedent analysis
Although the State cited cases emphasising reliance on prosecutrix testimony, the High Court found them inapplicable because those decisions presuppose consistent and credible evidence.
Instead, the Court relied on long-standing principles:
• Acquittal stands unless the prosecution case is unimpeachable and the trial court’s view is unreasonable.
• Improvements and contradictions materially weaken testimony.
• Failure to examine crucial witnesses allows benefit of doubt.
The Court’s approach is consistent with Supreme Court standards governing appeals against acquittal.
8. Court’s reasoning
The Court held that the Magistrate’s findings were based on sound reasoning:
• No sexual assault was ever alleged initially; later embellishments cast doubt on reliability.
• Stalking allegations conflicted with the admitted voluntary communication through SIM cards.
• No CDRs, messages or phone seizure, making core allegations unproven.
• Key witnesses missing, particularly the maternal uncle and family members.
• Absence of corroboration despite availability of best evidence.
Thus, the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the Magistrate rightly granted benefit of doubt. No perversity or misappreciation warranted appellate interference.
9. Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the State’s appeal, holding:
• The prosecutrix’s testimony was not of the quality required to sustain conviction.
• The prosecution failed to prove stalking, sexual harassment, intimidation or restraint beyond reasonable doubt.
• The Magistrate had correctly acquitted the respondent.
The appeal and all pending applications were accordingly dismissed.
10. Implications
This judgment reinforces that:
• Prosecutrix testimony must be consistent and credible; courts cannot convict on improved or embellished versions.
• Electronic evidence—when central to the prosecution case—must be properly seized and proved.
• Failure to examine crucial independent witnesses is fatal.
• Appellate courts will not overturn acquittal unless the judgment is perverse.
• Benefit of doubt remains a key safeguard in criminal trials where evidence is incomplete or contradictory.
The judgment underscores the judiciary’s emphasis on evidentiary integrity in offences involving stalking and intimidation.
CASE LAW REFERENCES
1. Appeals against acquittal — strict standard
Acquittal cannot be reversed unless findings are unreasonable or perverse.
2. Sterling quality testimony principle
Conviction based solely on prosecutrix testimony permissible only if evidence is consistent and unimpeachable.
3. Benefit of doubt doctrine
Where prosecution withholds best evidence or key witnesses, the accused is entitled to acquittal.
FAQs
1. Why did the Delhi High Court uphold the acquittal in this stalking case?
Because the prosecutrix’s testimony contained improvements and key electronic and witness evidence was missing.
2. Can a conviction be based solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony?
Yes, but only if it is consistent, credible and free of material contradictions—conditions not satisfied in this case.
3. What evidentiary gaps weakened the prosecution case?
Lack of CDRs, unproven SIM messages, failure to seize the phone, and non-examination of crucial witnesses.
