Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that this petitioner had indulged in an act of committing the offence punishable under Section 354D along with Sections 341, 323, 354, 506 and 507 of IPC. The allegation against this petitioner is that the complainant - Ashwini originally hails from Nejjuru village, Sidapura taluk and now she is married and residing at Rajivnagar, Soraba with her husband CW5 and she has two children. When the complainant was doing her high school studies in Sagar Junior College, Veena, the sister of the accused also coming to the said college and the accused was one class NC: 2025:KHC:2160 ahead of them through the acquaintance of her classmate Veena, the complainant was introduced to the accused. In the year 2011, when the complainant was pursuing graduation in Indiragandi Womens college, Sagar, the accused came near her college and asking her to give him the mobile numbers of other girls. The complainant completed her graduation and moved to Siddapura. The complainant was working temporarily as a data entry operator in the Tahsildar office at that time the complainant was using her mobile for her personal use and as she was taking to Veena who is the sister of the accused through the said mobile phone. The accused was also talking to the complainant at that time. In the year 2013, the marriage of the complainant was fixed with CW5, at that time the accused phoned to the family of the complainant and told them that the complainant should not get married, he will not let her get marry and he was scaring the complainant and her family members that the boy she is marrying is not right, but the complainant bravely married CW5 and she lives in the Rajiv Nagar of NC: 2025:KHC:2160 Soraba with her husband. After that the complainant was not in contact with the accused.

3. That on 16.09.2020, the mother of the complainant CW2 died. One day the complainant's children had come to Sagar town to buy clothes, so they thought they would wait for CW4 and they waited near the temple Sharadamba near HDFC bank, J C Nagar near the circle. When the complainant's son told her that he was hungry and she went near the milk dairy at forest office road, Sagar town at 1.30 p.m., to fetch milk from the hotel, a that time, the accused came from somewhere and saw the complainant and came near her and told her that today is her birthday and he called her to cut the cake but she refused for it. The accused told her that he needs a photo of her for remembrance and took photo of her and send her back. Thereafter the accused telephoned to the complainant and told that he would send the said photo to her husband and to everyone. The accused demanded the complainant that whenever he calls, wherever he calls, she NC: 2025:KHC:2160 has to come and every often used to call her and threatened her. Further, the accused threatened the complainant that if she did not come, repeatedly he threatened her that he would kill her husband. The accused was calling the complainant through his mobile and threatening the complainant. Further, when the accused called the complainant through phone and when the complainant refuses for it, then he used to threaten the complainant that he would kill her husband. Then the accused called CW5 through phone and told her that he wants to talk to her and told her to come to Sagar or else he would kill her. The same was continued. Hence, a complaint was lodged and the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet and case has been registered and witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court and the petitioner was convicted for the offences invoked against him and for the offence punishable under Section 354 and 354D of IPC, he was convicted for a period of two years with fine of Rs.2,000/- each and also convicted for the other offences punishable NC: 2025:KHC:2160 under Section 341, 323 and 506 of IPC with fine. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed and in the appeal also the First Appellate Court considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record dismissed the appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also taken note of the factual aspects of the case and charges made against the petitioner as well as considered the offences invoked against the petitioner. No doubt, the Trial Court sentenced him for consecutive sentence and other cases are registered against him for other offences but not the offences similar to the charges made against him in this petition. The punishment imposed is also maximum for a period of two years that is for the offence punishable NC: 2025:KHC:2160 under Section 354D of IPC. Section 354D of IPC reads as under:

"354D. Stalking :- (1) Any man who--

i. follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or ii. monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking;

Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that--