Bhushanavena Balaraju , Balu vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 3586 Tel

       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

               CRIMINAL APPEAL No.88 of 2022

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/Accused

aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the IV Additional

Sessions Judge (FTC)-cum-Special Judge for POCSO Act Cases,

Karimnagar, in Sessions Case No.104 of 2018, dt.11.02.2022,

convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections

354-D of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the accused to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also a

fine of Rs.1,000/-.

2. Heard.

3. The case of the victim-PW1 is that while she was studying

Intermediate II year, the accused followed her on the pretext of

love on 13.12.2017 at about 5.30 P.M., while she was in

Peddapalli Bus Stand to go to Peddakalvala village, the appellant

went there and harassed her on the pretext of love and

threatened her. It was witnessed by two other witnesses and on

seeing that the appellant fled. Six days thereafter on 19.12.2017,

a complaint was lodged before the Police which was marked as

Ex.P1 in the trial Court.

4. On the basis of the said complaint, the Police filed charge

sheet for the offences under Section 354-D of the Indian Penal

Code and Section 11 r/w.12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

5. The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the evidence

adduced during trial, recorded conviction for the offence under

Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit

that false complaint was filed on account of disputes in between

the families. Further, there is no proof that the appellant was a

minor when the incident had occurred. The allegation does not

attract any of the ingredients of Section 354-D of the Indian

Penal Code.

7. On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor

would submit that the evidence disclosed that the appellant

followed the victim on the pretext of love and it amounts to

harassment. It squarely falls within the definition of Section

354-D of the Indian Penal Code.

8. Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows;

"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;"

9. The requirement under Section 354-D is that a person

should have followed and contacted a woman to foster personal

interaction 'repeatedly'.

10. In the present case, solitary incident is narrated by the

victim-PW1. There is nothing in the evidence of PW1 to indicate

that the said act of following or expressing love was on more

than one occasion. Solitary instance cannot be an act committed

repeatedly as required under Section 354-D of the Indian Penal

Code. In the said circumstances, none of the ingredients of

Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code are made out.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed and the

conviction recorded by the IV Additional Sessions Judge (FTC)-

cum-Special Judge for POCSO Act Cases, Karimnagar, in

Sessions Case No.104 of 2018, dt.11.02.2022, against the

appellant, is hereby set aside. The appellant is on bail and his

bail bonds shall stand discharged.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 06.11.2023 tk