In a recent judgment passed by the Delhi high court, Santosh Singh, the prime accused in the Priyadarshini Mattoo murder case, was released on bail. This was hardly surprising, given that Singh had earlier been acquitted by a lower court, almost a year ago. The law demands that the prosecution must be able to prove its case conclusively, especially if the whole case rests on circumstantial evidence. According to the Supreme Court, the motive in a case based on circumstantial evidence assumes great importance. If other circumstances prove the case conclusively, only then can the absence of motive be ignored. In the Priyadarshini Mattoo case, the state had been able to establish the motive. The additional sessions judge, G.P Thareja, believed that 'the facts proved and the acts of the accused lead to the inference that the accused had the motive to have the deceased at any cost and failing to do that, did not allow her to belong to anyone else. The state has established that motive'. That fact alone should have been enough to convict the accused. Instead, Thareja indicted the Central Bureau of Investigation for tampering with the medical evidence. The judge felt that there was no evidence on record to suggest that Mattoo had been raped. The blood samples taken from the accused had been handled ineptly and the vaginal swabs had failed to prove the rape conclusively. The CBI had also failed to produce the two prime witnesses, namely the victim's servant and Mattoo's Vasant Kunj neighbour, Kuppuswamy. As a result Singh was acquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt. Almost five years after her death, Priyadarshini Mattoo continues to live, if only in newspapers and in the hearts of her family and well-wishers. The truth of the matter is that Mattoo need not have died at all. Her death has, more than anything else, exposed the inadequacy of laws in our country, specially those regarding rape, molestation and stalking. Her case is important because it will bring the sense of a resolution for her family and friends other than bringing the culprit to justice. What is most disturbing about this case is that Mattoo knew that she was being stalked. In the period between February 25 and November 6, 1995, the Mattoo family had complained to the police on six occasions about Singh's misdemeanour and continued harassment of Mattoo. She complained that he used to block her way with his motorcycle at crossings and shadow her on campus. However, in the absence of anti-stalking legislation, the police could do nothing more than detain the accused for a couple of hours and then let him off with a warning. Unlike India, countries like Britain, the United States and Australia have very definite anti-stalking laws. There is no one definition of stalking available in the laws of these countries. Stalking is usually defined as the act of a person who, on more than one occasion, follows, pursues, or harasses you, and by engaging in a pattern of conduct knowingly causes you to believe that he will cause you physical harm or mental distress. Stalking behaviour can range from unsolicited gifts and flowers, to telephone calls, letters, break-ins and even murder. The difference between harassment and stalking is usually a distinction of law. When harassing behaviour is repeated again and again, it becomes stalking. According to forensic psychologists, stalkers generally fall into two categories - the love obsessional stalker and the simple obsessional stalker. The former usually goes after celebrities and has no relationship with his target. Seventy five percent of stalkers fall into the second category, and usually have some prior relationship with the victim. The simple obsessional stalker is the most dangerous and may even be a former husband or a boyfriend or someone the victim may have met briefly or dated once. The psychological profile of a typical stalker is that he is immature, jealous and unable to have close relationships. He is usually young or middle aged, his intelligence above average; he is insecure and has a very low self-esteem. He may have genuine problems with intimacy; so that his victim becomes the be-all of his existence. He may have a history of sexual abuse and mental illness. He generally preys on the fear of his victims as their fear makes him powerful. Most stalkers start out as voyeurs and then graduate further as their psychopathology deepens. In the US, the first anti-stalking law was passed in 1990 in California. The US Congress enacted the first federal stalking law in 1996. These laws protect the victim and help her assume control of her life. Stalking can be very difficult to prove and, therefore, the victim should try to preserve some form of communication with the stalker, ranging from letters or email to telephone conversations. Getting a caller identity installed in the telephone or anonymous call blocking can also help. However, the laws as they exist in the US or in other countries cannot be incorporated into our legal system. Lawmakers and jurists in India must decide, after a complete review of anti-stalking legislation in these countries, which laws would best suit the Indian system. In fact, a complete review of the criminal justice system is long overdue. The Mattoo case proves beyond doubt, the politics that exists in our legal system. The tussle of jurisdictional issues between the police and agencies like the CBI complicates matters further. The bureaucracy must play a lesser role in justice. The lawmakers must realize that society is changing, as is the nature of crime. The system must adapt to these changes. This includes a more sympathetic attitude to issues like rape and sexual harassment. In order to prevent the evidence in a case from being manipulated, autonomy should be granted to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory to conduct its investigations. All findings in a criminal case should be kept secret. The government should also contemplate establishing the post of a chief medical examiner, who would be free from bureaucratic control. The Mattoo case could not have been simpler. The prime accused was arrested within 24 hours of the murder on January 24, 1996. Under police interrogation he confessed to the rape and murder of Mattoo, leaving hardly any room for the defence. Though the taped confession would not have been permissible in court, the case was still quite self-evident. Yet it was the prosecution which was in deep trouble when the verdict came out. It remains to be seen whether the high court will overrule the lower court's judgement. Meanwhile, we can all agree that justice had not been done.