The term ‘repeatedly’ in Section 354-D of the IPC requires recurring acts over a continuous period, which the prosecution failed to establish. Delay in lodging the FIR without justification casts doubt on the veracity of the allegations. Material inconsistencies in witness statements diminish the credibility and trustworthiness of the evidence.

The Court found inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence presented by the victim and independent witness. Held that the solitary incident could not amount to repeated conduct necessary for establishing the offence of stalking under Section 354-D of the IPC. Noted the delay in filing the FIR without reasonable explanation, creating doubts regarding the authenticity of the allegations. Quashed the conviction and acquitted the appellant, granting the benefit of the doubt.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Constitution of India (COI) — Right to Fair Trial

2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 164 — Recording of Statements

3. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 354-D — Stalking — Section 354-A — Sexual Harassment

4. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) — Section 12 — Sexual Harassment of a Child

Subjects:

Stalking — Acquittal — Insufficient Evidence — Contradictions — Delay in FIR — Benefit of Doubt — Juvenile Victim — Public Document — Solitary Incident — Suppression of Facts

Remedy Sought: Appellant sought reversal of conviction and acquittal from the offence punishable under Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code.

Reason for Filing the Case: Appeal against conviction and sentence by the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati in Special (POCSO) Case No. 235 of 2018.

Previous Decision: The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 354-D of the IPC and sentenced him to one-year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for eight days.

Issues:
a) Whether the prosecution established the offence of stalking under Section 354-D of the IPC?
b) Whether the evidence presented was credible and consistent?
c) Whether the delay in lodging the FIR affected the reliability of the case?

Submissions/Arguments:

• Appellant: Argued that the evidence was inconsistent and contradictory, with material discrepancies between the testimonies of the victim and the independent witness. Emphasized the solitary incident’s insufficiency to constitute the offence of stalking and highlighted the delay in lodging the FIR as a sign of afterthought and embellishment.

• State: Contended that the victim’s evidence was cogent and supported by independent witnesses, establishing repeated conduct by the appellant despite the victim’s clear indication of disinterest.