Stalking Provisions
What is Stalking?
Stalking involves repeatedly following, contacting, or harassing a person in a manner that causes fear, distress, or harm to that person. It is a criminal offence designed to protect personal security and privacy.
Legal Provisions under Indian Law
The main legal provisions related to stalking are:
1. Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Introduced by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, Section 354D specifically deals with stalking.
Definition of Stalking (IPC 354D(1)):
Whoever follows a woman and contacts or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman, or
Whoever monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email, or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking.
Punishment (IPC 354D(2)):
Imprisonment up to 3 years and fine for the first offence; imprisonment up to 5 years and fine for subsequent offences.
2. Section 503 IPC: Criminal Intimidation, which sometimes applies to stalking.
3. Section 507 IPC: Criminal intimidation by anonymous communication.
4. Information Technology Act, 2000:
Certain forms of electronic stalking can be covered under IT Act provisions dealing with cyber harassment.
Essential Elements of Stalking
Repeated following or contacting a woman.
Intent to foster personal interaction despite refusal.
Monitoring of electronic communication to harass or intimidate.
Clear indication of disinterest by the victim.
Causing fear, distress, or harm.
Landmark Case Laws on Stalking
1. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti, (2004) 1 MLJ (Crl) 121
Facts:
The accused created a fake profile on an online matrimonial website, harassed and stalked the victim through electronic means.
Held:
The Madras High Court held that cyberstalking falls within the ambit of stalking under IPC 354D and emphasized the use of IT Act for cyber offences.
Significance:
One of the earliest cases recognizing cyberstalking as an offence.
2. Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 11 SCC 737
Facts:
While primarily dealing with the right to choose a partner, this case touched upon stalking and harassment in personal relationships.
Held:
The Supreme Court acknowledged the need to protect individuals from harassment and stalking, reinforcing the protective intent of IPC 354D.
Significance:
Reinforced the protection against stalking in the context of personal liberty.
3. Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2017) SCC OnLine Jhar 442
Facts:
A woman was stalked and harassed repeatedly by the accused despite her refusal.
Held:
The Jharkhand High Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused but noted the serious nature of stalking and warned that evidence must be carefully examined.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that stalking is a serious offence, not to be taken lightly by courts.
4. Swathi Reddy v. State, (2013) 8 MLJ 814
Facts:
The accused persistently followed and harassed the victim in public.
Held:
The Madras High Court observed that stalking causes grave psychological harm and held the accused liable under Section 354D IPC.
Significance:
Recognized the psychological impact of stalking and the need for strict enforcement.
5. Vijayalakshmi v. State, (2019) SCC OnLine Mad 1439
Facts:
The accused sent repeated unsolicited messages and calls despite victim’s refusal.
Held:
The Court convicted the accused under Section 354D and emphasized the victim’s right to privacy and dignity.
Significance:
Confirmed that electronic communication harassment amounts to stalking.
6. Rajesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2020) SCC OnLine Mad 927
Facts:
The accused followed the victim repeatedly and tried to force interaction despite refusal.
Held:
Madras High Court held that stalking is a cognizable offence and the victim’s right to live with dignity must be protected.
Significance:
Emphasized prompt action by police and courts in stalking cases.
Summary Table: Key Takeaways
| Legal Aspect | Explanation | Case Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Definition of stalking | Following or contacting despite refusal | IPC 354D |
| Cyberstalking | Includes online harassment | State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti |
| Psychological harm | Recognized as serious harm | Swathi Reddy v. State |
| Electronic communication | Included in stalking | Vijayalakshmi v. State |
| Cognizable offence | Police must take prompt action | Rajesh v. State of Tamil Nadu |
Practical Implications
Stalking is a non-bailable, cognizable offence.
Victims should report immediately to the police.
Courts may impose strict punishment, including imprisonment and fine.
Electronic evidence plays a crucial role in proving cyberstalking.
Awareness and sensitization of police are important for victim protection.
RELATED Blog
0 comments