Impossible To Stalk Someone During Morning Hours On Busy Roads: Mumbai Court acquits stalker

Judge Yashshree Marulkar of the Esplanade Metropolitan Magistrate Court of Mumbai has acquitted a man who was accused of stalking a woman for almost three months every day near the railway station on the grounds that it is impossible to stalk someone during morning office hours on the busy roads of Mumbai.

The informant alleged that she used to leave her house at 8:30 AM for her office to the Marin Lines Railway Station and for almost 3 months the accused was stalking her and used to stare at her. The workshop of the accused was located at the end of the street and he used to stare at her every time the informant left her building during office hours in the morning.

It was also alleged that when she was walking on the footpath, the accused was following her from another side of the road on his bike, and on the day of the incident, when she arrived on the bridge, the accused was waving his hand at her. The informant then gave an angry look at the accused but the accused kept on smiling at her. The informant then spoke to her brother and friends who advised her to file a complaint with the police. Subsequently, a case was registered under Section 354(d) against the accused after which an investigation was conducted and a charge sheet came to be filed.

The magistrate court while acquitting the accused noted that the information given by the informant is impossible to believe during the morning office hours on the busy roads of Mumbai. The court in its order stated

“On the busy roads of Mumbai, in the morning hours, when there is always rush of the people to reach the railway stations and their respective offices, is beyond explanation. Basically it is highly impossible to follow somebody who is walking on the footpath at busy morning office hours on bike from the other side of the road. So, basic version of the informant considering the situation of the road and the time and for long duration of three months, is impossible cannot be believed upon.”

The court while questioning the delay in filling of the complaint after three months noted that

“Further, if at all the accused was following the informant for long duration of three months regularly then the question arise why she has not approached police immediately? and why she waited for such a long period.”

The court accepted the defense of the accused that he was having his garage at the end of the lane where the informant is residing and that there was a misunderstanding of the informant that he was following her.