Section 354D IPC

Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the offence of stalking. Stalking, which involves persistent and unwanted attention, monitoring, or contact with another person, primarily targets women and is recognised as a criminal offence in order to safeguard their safety and dignity.

This article provides a detailed legal analysis of Section 354D of the IPC, discussing its provisions, exceptions and penalties.

Section 354D of the IPC

Section 354 of the IPC states:

(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; or

(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication,

commits the offence of stalking;

Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that—

(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or

(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or

(iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.

(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on the first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 354D IPC: Provisions

Definition of Stalking

The first subsection of Section 354D defines stalking. It states that any man who does the following can be charged with the offence of stalking:
(i) Follows a Woman: This involves pursuing a woman physically, shadowing her movements, or keeping a watch on her in person.
(ii) Contacts or Attempts to Contact Repeatedly: The man repeatedly tries to communicate with the woman. This communication can be in the form of calls, messages, or other means.

Clear Indication of Disinterest

The act of stalking should take place despite a clear indication of disinterest from the woman. It is essential that the woman has expressed her lack of interest explicitly and the man continues to engage in stalking activities.

Proviso to Section 354D(1)

Section 354D(1) provides certain exceptions, stating that stalking does not apply if the following conditions are met:
(i) Purpose of Preventing or Detecting Crime: Stalking will not be considered an offence if the man can prove that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting a crime and he had been entrusted with the responsibility of crime prevention and detection by the State. This exception acknowledges that certain law enforcement officers or individuals may need to monitor certain individuals as part of their job.
(ii) Compliance with Laws or Conditions: If the act of stalking is undertaken to comply with any law or a condition imposed by a person under any law, it will not be considered an offence.
(iii) Reasonable and Justified Circumstances: Stalking may not be considered an offence if it can be shown that, in the particular circumstances, such conduct was reasonable and justified. This allows for flexibility in certain situations where stalking may be necessary for legitimate reasons.

Penalties

• First Conviction: Upon the first conviction for stalking, the offender may be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend to three years, in addition to a fine.
• Second or Subsequent Convictions: In case of a second or subsequent conviction, the offender may be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend to five years, along with a fine.

Essentials of Section 354D IPC

The essentials of the offence of stalking under Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code require specific elements to be established for a violation to occur. These elements of Section 354D of the IPC include:

• Perpetrator’s Gender: Stalking must be committed by any man. The offence is gender-specific, meaning it involves a man as the perpetrator and a woman as the victim.
• Unwanted Contact: The man must try to contact or contact a woman against her interest. This element involves any form of communication, be it in person or through electronic means, where the woman has expressed disinterest and the man persists in trying to establish contact.
• Repetition: The act of stalking must exhibit a certain degree of repeatedness. It’s not a one-time occurrence but rather involves a pattern of persistent and unwanted attention or contact. This pattern is essential to distinguish stalking from isolated or accidental interactions.
• Absence of Interest: There should be a clear indication of disinterest on the part of the woman. This element is crucial to ensure that the woman’s lack of consent or interest is evident and that the man is persisting despite her objections.

Modes of Stalking under Section 354D IPC

Stalking can manifest in various forms and techniques. While there isn’t a single style that constitutes stalking as a crime, it can include any of the following behaviours:

• Tracking the Victim: This involves following the victim’s movements, either physically or through surveillance methods, to monitor their activities.
• Sending Offensive Messages: Stalkers may send offensive or threatening messages, which can be in the form of text messages, emails, or any other electronic means of communication.
• Coercive Attempts to Communicate: Stalkers may use various methods to coerce the victim into communicating with them, which could include threats or manipulation.
• Unauthorised Photography: Taking pictures of the victim without her consent is a form of invasion of privacy and can be considered part of stalking behaviour.
• Physical Assault, Sexual Assault Threats and Violence: Stalkers may resort to physical assault, sexual assault threats, or the threat of physical violence to intimidate and control the victim.
• Loitering Near Victim’s Residence: Stalkers may stand outside the victim’s house or workplace, making unnecessary visits or presence as a means of intimidation or harassment.
• Use of Social Media and Apps: With the advent of technology, stalkers can use social media platforms and various apps to stalk their victims, such as sending messages, tracking locations, or monitoring online activities.

Section 354D IPC: Legal Analysis

The legal implications of Section 354D are crucial for understanding the protection it offers to women and the consequences for those found guilty of stalking. It emphasises the following key points:

• Protection for Women: Section 354D is a significant step towards safeguarding the rights and dignity of women. It recognises the detrimental impact of stalking on victims and provides a legal framework to address this issue.
• Exceptions for Law Enforcement: The law acknowledges that certain professionals, such as law enforcement officers, may need to engage in activities that resemble stalking in the course of their duties. This provision ensures that legitimate crime prevention and detection efforts are not penalised.
• Balancing Rights: The law allows for the defence of reasonable and justified circumstances, which ensures that the rights of the accused are also considered. This provision helps maintain a balance between protecting women from harassment and respecting individual rights.
• Strict Penalties: The law imposes stringent penalties, especially for repeat offenders, to deter individuals from engaging in stalking behaviour. These penalties include both imprisonment and fines, emphasising the seriousness of the offence.

Section 354D IPC Case Laws

Shri Deu Baju Bodake v. The State of Maharashtra (2016)

In this case, the Bombay High Court dealt with the tragic death of a woman due to ongoing harassment and stalking by the accused. The victim was relentlessly pursued and stalked by the offender, even during her work, despite her clear resistance and lack of interest. The High Court emphasised the importance of invoking Section 354D of the IPC in conjunction with abetment to suicide to hold the guilty accountable.

Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Single Judge Bench Case (2023)

In a recent judgment, a single judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court refused a bail application for an 18-year-old boy accused of stalking. The court observed that some crimes are driven by financial gain, while others, like stalking, seek psychological gratification. The petitioner in this case had persistently stalked a 16-year-old girl with the aim of deriving mental satisfaction.

Stalking, voyeurism and following the victim not only cause severe embarrassment and harassment but also undermine the victim’s self-esteem. This is especially pertinent in societies with feudalistic norms, where the perpetrator considers his actions a form of conquest, sending a disturbing message to the community.

Santosh Kumar Singh v. State Through CBI (2010)

This infamous case revolved around the stalking, rape and murder of Priyadarshini Mattoo, a 25-year-old law student, in New Delhi. The accused, Santosh Singh, a senior student at the Delhi campus law centre and the son of a former IPS officer, had subjected the victim to relentless stalking, harassment, threats and lewd demands. The case triggered the application of Section 354D of the IPC.

After an FIR was filed under Section 354, the accused was granted bail. The situation escalated to such an extent that the university’s dean intervened, instructing the accused to cease his reprehensible behaviour and providing personal protection to the victim. Tragically, the victim was attacked and killed while home alone, leading to a highly complex legal battle. The accused was initially sentenced to death, but the Supreme Court later commuted the punishment to life imprisonment, citing issues with evidence fabrication and legal processes.

Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram (2012)

This case underscores the significance of addressing complaints by victims and onlookers concerning incidents of evening taunting and harassment in public spaces, including transit systems, schools, theatres and other locations.

Kalandi Charan Lenka v. State of Orissa (2017)

In this case, the informant, a student at Pattamundai’s Women’s College, reported indecent remarks and harassment she experienced at school. Her father had also received pornographic messages from an unidentified number, which adversely impacted the family’s reputation. The High Court ruled that the accused was prima facie liable for sexual harassment, leading to the denial of the bail application. The case highlights the importance of addressing such incidents and taking appropriate legal action to protect victim.

Exceptions to Stalking Under Section 354D of the IPC

Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code addresses the offence of stalking, but it also provides certain exceptions that prevent specific actions from being considered as stalking under the law. These exceptions include:

• Responsibility to the State for Crime Prevention or Detection: Stalking does not constitute an offence if a man is pursuing a woman as part of his official duty or responsibility to the state to detect or prevent a crime. In such cases, the man’s actions may be justified if they are undertaken in the interest of law enforcement and public safety.
• Compliance with Authorised Conditions or Laws: Stalking is not an offence if a man is engaging in such conduct as a requirement or condition imposed by a person authorised by law. This exception acknowledges that certain lawful obligations or conditions may necessitate monitoring or interaction with an individual.
• Reasonable and Justifiable Circumstances: Stalking may not be considered an offence if the man can demonstrate that, in the specific circumstances, his conduct was reasonable and justified. This exception allows for flexibility in cases where the actions taken by the man may be considered reasonable and justifiable under the given circumstances.

It’s important to note that these exceptions are intended to prevent the misuse of the law in situations where actions may have a legitimate purpose. However, the burden of proof lies with the accused to establish that their actions fall within one of these exceptions.

Punishment for Stalking under Section 354D of the IPC

Under Section 354D of the IPC, the penalties for stalking are as follows:

• First Conviction: Upon the first conviction for stalking, the offender may be punished with simple or grievous imprisonment for a term that may extend to three years and is also liable to pay a fine.
• Second or Subsequent Convictions: In the case of a second or subsequent conviction for stalking, the offender may be punished with simple or grievous imprisonment for a term that may extend to five years and shall also be liable to pay a fine.

These penalties are designed to deter individuals from engaging in stalking behaviour and to protect the rights and dignity of women by providing legal consequences for those found guilty of the offence.

Conclusion

Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code is a significant legal provision aimed at protecting women from the offence of stalking. It defines stalking, provides exceptions for certain circumstances and imposes penalties on those found guilty.

Understanding this section is vital for both women seeking protection from stalking and individuals seeking to avoid wrongful accusations, especially in the age of technological advancements and increased connectivity.