The prosecution failed to prove the offence of stalking under Section 354-D due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in the victim's testimony.

JUDGMENT :

1. In this appeal, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 02.01.2020, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Amravati in Special (POCSO) Case No. 235 of 2018, whereby the learned Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer SI for eight days.

2. BACKGROUND FACTS :

The crime in this case was registered on the report of the victim girl. The prosecution case, which can be unfolded from the report and other materials, is that the incident occurred on 23.07.2018 at about 10.30 am. The victim girl and the appellant are residents of village Sahur, Tal. Ashti, Dist. Wardha. On 23.07.2018, at about 9.30 am, the victim girl boarded the ST bus to go to Haturna to attend the school. The appellant was also travelling in the said bus. As soon as the bus reached Haturna bus stand, the appellant caught hold of the hand of the victim girl and forced her to sit and get down at the next bus stop. The victim girl sat down. At the next stop, namely Panjabrao Thakre Krushi Vidyalaya, Haturna, she got down from the bus. The appellant followed her. The appellant again caught hold her hand and expressed his love for the victim. The appellant insisted the victim girl to answer whether she loves him or not. He threatened her that if she did not answer positively, then he would commit suicide in the river near her school. The victim girl thereafter shouted for help. One unknown person came there and questioned the appellant as to why he was harassing the victim girl. Thereafter, the appellant released the hand of the girl. Accused no.2 Harshal (Acquitted by the trial Judge) came on his motorcycle and the appellant and accused no.2 left that place.

3. It is further the case of the prosecution that the victim girl, who was scared on account of this incident, did not attend the school and return back to her home. She narrated the incident to her mother. The mother of the victim was shocked. She did not allow the victim to go to the school for two days. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 25.07.2018 while the victim was proceeding to attend the tuition class in the village, she saw both the accused together by the side of the road. After seeing them, the victim was scared and returned back to her home. She narrated the incident to her mother. Her mother narrated the incident to her husband. Thereafter, they decided to approach the police. On the next day, they went to the police station and the victim girl lodged the report.

4. On the basis of the report (Exh.13) of the victim girl, a crime bearing No. 83/2018 was registered against the appellant at Police Station, Benoda, Dist. Amravati. PW6 carried out the investigation. PW6 collected the birth certificate of the victim girl from the competent authority. The statement of the victim girl and the statement of the independent witness were recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. As the investigation revealed complicity of the appellant in the crime, he filed charge-sheet against the appellant and the co-accused.

5. Learned Sessions Judge framed the charge (Exh. 2) against the appellant. The appellant abjured his guilt. His defence is of false implication on account of enmity between the father of the appellant and one Prashant Takpure. A report was lodged at the instance of Prashant Takpure. The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, examined six witnesses. On consideration of the evidence, learned Judge held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354-D of the IPC and sentenced him as above. The appellant has come in appeal before this Court.

6. I have heard Mr. U. J. Deshpande, learned advocate for the appellant and Mrs. M. A. Barabde, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the record and proceedings.

7. Learned advocate for the appellant s