Man Grooving His Neck Towards A Woman While Hearing Music & Riding Bike Is Not 'Stalking' : Bombay High Court
A man grooving his neck, towards a woman, while hearing music and riding a bike, will not amount to the offence of stalking as provided under section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Bombay High Court held on Friday. The court however, held that the act of riding a two-wheeler at a high speed and in a wavering manner, coming close to another two-wheeler and overtaking it, would amount...
A man grooving his neck, towards a woman, while hearing music and riding a bike, will not amount to the offence of stalking as provided under section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Bombay High Court held on Friday. The court however, held that the act of riding a two-wheeler at a high speed and in a wavering manner, coming close to another two-wheeler and overtaking it, would amount to rash and negligent driving.
Single-Judge Justice Milind Jadhav therefore, quashed the conviction of one Rakesh Shukla, to the extent of the court convicting him for the offence of stalking but upheld his conviction for negligent and rash driving.
The Applicant, the judge noted, was wearing sunglasses and admittedly had headphones fixed to his ears and was listening to loud music.
"The only gesture attributable to the Applicant by prosecution is of shaking of his neck i.e. grooving his neck while riding and simultaneously listening to the music, rather loud music which also could be the case. Whether such gesture can be attributed to the act of Applicant trying to interact, foster and draw attention of the Complainant is not proved. Such an action on the part of Applicant in my opinion, does not fall into any one of the attributes or ingredients of the offence of stalking as enumerated under Section 354D of IPC. Therefore, the Trial Court has not appreciated the ingredients of the provisions of Section 354D in the facts of the present case and rather embarked upon construing that the act of the Applicant has been an attempt to affect the modesty of the woman," Justice Jadhav held in the order.
In his order, Justice Jadhav noted that on 27 May 2017, the appellant was accused of riding his motorcycle in a high speed, in a wavering manner, overtook the complainant woman, thrice after coming close to her two-wheeler, in Navi Mumbai. During this act, which lasted for nearly 20 minutes, the complainant woman alleged that the man also shook/grooved his neck while looking at her. The judge noted that during this entire act, the man was hearing to 'loud music' on headphones.
The judge further noted that there was no CCTV footage obtained by the prosecution to show that the appellant was following her.
"Infact, prosecution's case itself disproves that Applicant contacted, attempted to contact, attempted to foster personal interaction, attempted to do so repeatedly despite Complainant showing interest is clearly not proved in the present case. There is no talk, approach or interaction between parties. Infact none of the ingredients of the offence of stalking can be made attributable to the conduct of the Applicant in the present case," the judge held.
There is no mens rea whatsoever involved in the present case. There is no direct evidence whatsoever in that regard. Such an act cannot be inferred on the basis of mere conduct, which is a group of acts committed by a person, the judge held.
As far as the allegation of overspeeding and overtaking are concerned, the bench said that the act of overtaking and coming close while driving a vehicle in motion undoubtedly endangers the life and limb of both the riders in question, especially the woman herein.
In this case, the Complainant woman, received a shock and surprise when the Applicant rode close to her and overtook her because she was required to apply sudden brakes in such an emergent situation. While doing so, there was every possibility of Complainant losing control of her two-wheeler.
"The act of the Applicant of coming close to the Complainant, even if it was at a hand's distance and then overtaking her abruptly is undoubtedly a rash act. In the present case, the said rash act according to prosecution has been repeated three times by Applicant within a span of 20 minutes. Such act on the part of Applicant resulted in causing injuries to Complainant," the bench noted.
Further, the judge held, "Riding a two-wheeler alongside another two-wheeler, attempting to overtake the other two-wheeler, riding a two-wheeler in a wavering manner and while attempting to overtake it at a high speed would undoubtedly lead to an accident, if the other two-wheeler loses its control. This has precisely happened in the present case. That apart, riding a two-wheeler with loud music and headphones on ears would also qualify as a rash act on the part of the Applicant while riding a two-wheeler. In that view of the matter, the case of prosecution has been adequately proved beyond reasonable doubt to this extent (negligent driving) only."
The court, therefore, modified the September 6, 2019 judgment of a Sessions Court, which confirmed a 2018 judgment of the Trial Court convicting the applicant for stalking and negligently driving. The High Court, quashed the conviction to the extent of stalking but upheld the same for negligent driving.
Appearance:
Advocates Tanveer Aziz Patel and Aditya Shah appeared for the Applicant.
Additional Public Prosecutor Sangita Phad represented the State.
Case Title: Rakesh Shukla vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Revision Application 538 of 2024)