Conviction for Stalking and Sexual Harassment Sustainable Solely on Consistent and Credible Testimony of a Minor Victim

The Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court on 07.03.2018 for stalking and sexually harassing PW2, a 17-year-old minor

The prosecution alleged that on 28.08.2014, the Appellant followed PW2, threatened to throw acid on her, and persisted in following her despite her changing routes to avoid him

PW5, a neighbor, intervened and apprehended the Appellant after witnessing the distress of the victim

The Appellant contended that he merely approached the victim to warn her against contacting a friend named Amir

The Appellant challenged the conviction primarily on the grounds of inconsistencies between the testimonies of the victim (PW2) and the eyewitness (PW5)

1. Whether there is any infirmity in the Trial Court's judgment recording conviction under Section 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 354D of the IPC

2. Whether the non-compliance with Section 232 of the Cr.P.C. (hearing after accused's statement) vitiates the trial proceedings

3. Whether the prosecution established the "sexual intent" necessary for an offense under Section 11 of the POCSO Act

Section 354D of the IPC (Stalking), which requires proof of repeatedly following or contacting a woman shifts despite clear disinterest

Section 11/12 of the POCSO Act (Sexual Harassment), which requires such conduct to be committed with "sexual intent" against a minor

Ganesan v. State, holding that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a victim if it is of "sterling quality"

State of Rajasthan v. Chatra, affirming that a child witness's testimony is sufficient if it inspires confidence

Moidu K. vs. State of Kerala, stating that non-compliance with Section 232 Cr.P.C. does not vitiate trial unless "substantial prejudice" is shown

The Court found the testimony of PW2 to be clear, cogent, and consistent across her FIR, Section 164 statement, and oral examination

While the Appellant pointed to an inconsistency—PW5 claimed physical restraint while PW2 did not—the Court dismissed this as a minor contradiction that did not erode the foundational fact of repeated stalking

The Court rejected the defense’s "reasonable justification" (warning her about Amir) under the proviso to Section 354D, noting that the Appellant was neither a parent nor guardian and produced no evidence beyond mere suggestions to substantiate this motive

Regarding "sexual intent" under POCSO, the Court inferred intent from the Appellant's conduct: a 18-year-old male repeatedly following a 17-year-old female despite her manifest disinterest and route changes

It held that the testimony of PW2 was of sterling quality and sufficient for conviction even without corroboration

The Court affirmed the sentence of 1 year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹30,000 under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, noting that pursuant to Section 42 of the POCSO Act, no separate sentence was required for the IPC offense