New Delhi: A Delhi court has upheld the conviction of a man for stalking, affirming the decision made by a Mahila court.
Additional Sessions Judge Sunil Gupta concluded that there was ample evidence to establish the defendant’s guilt, as he persistently followed the complainant despite her clear disinterest.
The judge also dismissed the defense’s argument that a prior relationship between the accused and the victim justified the stalking behaviour, holding that such reasoning did not absolve the appellant of the offense.
The case in question pertained to Sonu Rajora, who had appealed against his conviction under Section 354 D (stalking) of the Indian Penal Code. The mahila court had originally convicted him in February 2019, and the recent ruling by the sessions court reaffirmed his guilt.
“This court is of the view that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant Sonu Rajora used to follow the complainant and was so following her on the fateful day to foster personal interaction despite clear indication of disinterest by her,” the order read.
“Accordingly, the ingredients of Section 354D IPC stands proved against him and he has been rightly convicted for the same by Ld. Trial Court. The appeal stands dismissed as far as same pertains to his conviction,” it further read.
The court also rejected defense counsel’s argument that the appellant and complainant were in relationship earlier, saying that the testimonies are in no way sufficient to show the existence of any relationship between them. “Even if, it is presumed for the sake of arguments that the photographs submitted by appellant, indicate the existence of relationship between the parties before the incidence in question, that does not mean that the appellant was at liberty to stalk the complainant when she was not interested in him,” the court said.
“The existence of a relationship between a young boy and a young girl in past, has not been made an exception to the offence U/s 354D IPC. So, this defence is also of no help to the case of the appellant,” the court added.
–IANS