Section 354D IPC | MP High Court Acquits Man Accused Of Stalking, Cites Unexplained Delay In FIR

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has acquitted a man convicted of stalking, holding that an unexplained fifteen-day delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with the victim's own admission that the two were in love and that a marriage proposal had preceded the complaint, made the prosecution's case unsafe to sustain.

Justice B. P. Sharma was hearing a criminal appeal by Nitesh Kahar against a judgment of the Special Judge under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at Harda, which convicted him under Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 2,000. The trial court had earlier acquitted him of charges under the SC/ST Act and Section 506 IPC, but upheld the stalking charge.

According to the prosecution, the complainant, a B.Sc second-year student at a government college in Timarni, alleged that the appellant followed her on her way to and from college between February 13 and February 28, 2022. She stated that after he approached her again on February 28, she informed her father and lodged a police report the same day.

Shri Anil Sakley, appearing for the appellant, argued that the entire prosecution story was doubtful because the FIR was lodged a full fortnight after the alleged stalking began, without any explanation for the delay. He pointed to the complainant's cross-examination, where she admitted being in love with the appellant, and said the case was set in motion only after the appellant approached her father with a marriage proposal that was turned down. The defence also relied on photographs, marked Ex.D/1, said to show cordial relations between the two, and argued that the complainant's testimony contained a material omission in paragraph 15 of her cross-examination, she conceded she had not stated in her earlier statement under Section 164 of the CrPC that the appellant had followed her on February 28.

Ms. Shikha Baghel, appearing for the State, defended the trial court's verdict, submitting that the complainant's testimony was trustworthy and that a conviction could rest on the sole word of a victim if found reliable. She argued that minor omissions did not dent the core of the prosecution's case, and that the appellant's repeated attempts to approach the complainant were enough to satisfy the ingredients of Section 354D IPC.

The High Court disagreed. It held that the fifteen-day gap between the alleged start of the stalking on February 13 and the FIR on February 28 remained wholly unexplained, and that such a delay "assumes considerable significance" when a conviction rests solely on the complainant's testimony. The court noted that the complainant herself had admitted, during cross-examination, that the appellant was in love with her and had proposed marriage to her father, and that the FIR followed only after that proposal fell through a sequence the court said lent credence to the defence version.

The bench also observed that the complainant's admission regarding the February 28 incident directly undercut the very allegation on which the conviction rested, since the charge under Section 354D IPC "substantially rests upon the allegation of repeated following." It further noted the absence of any independent witness to corroborate the stalking allegation, and found that the trial court had failed to properly weigh these admissions and omissions while recording the conviction.

Reiterating that mere suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge under Section 354D IPC to the required standard. It set aside the trial court's judgment of conviction and sentence dated April 20, 2026, and acquitted the appellant of the offence. The court directed that his bail bonds stand discharged and that the fine, if already deposited, be refunded to him. The trial court record was ordered to be sent back along with a copy of the judgment for compliance.

Case Title: Nitesh Kahar vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: July 21, 2026

Bench: Justice B. P. Sharma