The Bombay High Court on Friday exonerated a Navi Mumbai man of stalking charges, ruling that simply grooving his head while listening to loud music does not constitute an attempt to interact with the victim- complainant, and therefore does not meet the legal definition of stalking [Rakesh Matasharan Shukla v State of Maharashtra].
The accused Rakesh Matasharan Shukla was booked for stalking after he was seen shaking his neck i.e. grooving his neck to the music while riding his two wheeler. The complainant had alleged that he was pursuing her and his gestures at her led to her losing the control of her two wheeler.
Justice Milind Jadhav absolved Shukla of stalking charges though he held that such behavior can be characterized as a rash act when performed while riding a two-wheeler.
"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 - PW-1 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," the Court said.
The incident occurred on May 27, 2017 near Nerul railway station. The complainant, who was riding a scooter, alleged that the accused closely followed her on his motorcycle, honking and making gestures. This behavior allegedly caused her to lose control, resulting in injuries to her elbow, shoulder and thigh.
She stated that Shukla was wearing headphones and listening to loud music which heightened her sense of danger. She also said that she was threatened by his repeated honking and attempts to overtake her.
A taxi driver corroborated her account, testifying that he witnessed Shukla weaving dangerously close to the complainant’s lane.
As a result, Shukla was convicted by the trial court under Sections 279 (rash and negligent driving), 354D (stalking), and 337 (causing hurt by an act endangering life) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
He received a sentence of three months for stalking, three months for rash driving, and three years for causing hurt.
The conviction was upheld by the District Court though the sentence of 3 years for causing hurt was reduced to three months.
Shukla then approached the High Court.
During the hearing before High Court, Shukla's counsel highlighted inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony as well as a three-day delay in filing the FIR which was attributed to a family wedding.
They argued that these factors undermined her credibility and contended that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of stalking, given that Shukla and the complainant were strangers.
In response, the prosecution argued that the testimonies from both the complainant and the taxi driver sufficiently demonstrated Shukla's reckless behavior.
They maintained that medical evidence confirmed the complainant’s injuries and insisted that the delay in filing the FIR should not discredit her account.
After hearing both sides, the Court set aside the stalking charge but upheld Shukla's conviction for rash and negligent driving.
"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. Constant wavering and interjecting the two-wheeler alongside leading to causing an accident is what has happened in the present case," the single-judge held.
It concluded that the prosecution had adequately proven its case and that the evidence had been properly evaluated by the lower courts.
Consequently, the stalking charge under Section 354D was quashed while the charges of rash and negligent driving under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC were upheld.
The Court also reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.
Shukla, who had already served 36 days of his sentence, was ordered to be released immediately.
The Court also took into account the fact that he is a married man with three children and the sole breadwinner of his family.
Advocates Tanveer Aziz Patel along with advocate Aditya Shah appeared for Rakesh Matasharan Shukla.
Additional Public Prosecutor Sangita Phad appeared for the State of Maharashtra.
[Read Order]