Bombay High Court Quashes Stalking Conviction Under Section 354D, Modifies Sentence for Rash and Negligent Driving: “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied”; Orders Immediate Release After 36 Days Served

Court’s Decision:

The Bombay High Court quashed the conviction under Section 354D (stalking) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), finding that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary elements of the offense. However, the Court upheld the convictions under Sections 279 and 337 for rash and negligent driving, modifying the sentence to the period already served by the applicant—36 days in jail.

Facts:

The applicant was convicted of stalking, rash driving, and causing injury by negligent driving. The case arose from an incident on May 27, 2017, where the applicant allegedly followed the complainant, overtook her multiple times, and eventually caused her to lose control of her two-wheeler, leading to injuries. The applicant was initially sentenced to three years’ imprisonment under Section 337 but the District Court reduced it to three months, citing a typographical error. The applicant was incarcerated starting September 6, 2024.

Issues:

1. Whether the applicant’s actions constituted stalking under Section 354D of IPC.
2. Whether the applicant’s conduct amounted to rash and negligent driving under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC.
3. Whether the sentence imposed was just and proportionate to the offense.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The applicant’s counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of stalking. The applicant and the complainant were strangers, and no evidence showed the applicant attempted to contact the complainant or foster personal interaction. The counsel also contended that the accident occurred due to the complainant’s collision with a parked vehicle, not the applicant’s conduct.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The State argued that the applicant’s actions of overtaking the complainant multiple times while riding dangerously close to her constituted both stalking and rash driving. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the complainant and an independent eyewitness to corroborate these claims. The respondent also emphasized that the applicant’s behavior endangered the complainant’s safety.

Analysis of the Law:

The Court focused on the elements of stalking under Section 354D of IPC, which require proof of repeated attempts to follow or contact the complainant despite clear indications of disinterest. The Court found that none of these elements were satisfied in this case. On the other hand, the Court accepted the prosecution’s argument regarding rash and negligent driving under Sections 279 and 337, as the applicant’s actions led to the complainant’s accident and injuries.

Precedent Analysis:

The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Prem Lal Anand vs. Narendra Kumar & Ors., emphasizing the principle of contributory negligence in accidents. The applicant’s actions were found to have materially contributed to the complainant’s injuries, even if not fully responsible for them.

Court’s Reasoning:

The Court noted that there was no evidence of the applicant’s intent to stalk or harass the complainant. The only gesture attributed to him was shaking his neck while riding with headphones on, which could not be construed as an attempt to interact or stalk the complainant. The Court held that such conduct did not meet the threshold for stalking under Section 354D. However, the applicant’s reckless riding, overtaking the complainant multiple times at close proximity, was deemed rash and negligent, justifying his conviction under Sections 279 and 337.

Conclusion:

The Bombay High Court quashed the conviction for stalking under Section 354D but upheld the convictions for rash and negligent driving. The Court reduced the applicant’s sentence to the 36 days he had already served, ordering his immediate release.

Implications:

The judgment clarifies the interpretation of stalking under Section 354D, reinforcing that mere proximity and gestures without intent to foster interaction do not constitute stalking. It also emphasizes that reckless driving, even without direct collision, can still result in conviction for causing injury through negligence.

Also Read – Jammu and Kashmir High Court Upholds Preventive Detention Order Against Accused for Supporting Terrorist Activities: “Normal Criminal Law Was Not Sufficient to Deter Him”