“A law is only as good as the systems and individuals that implement it. Mindsets and attitudes need to change so women can truly be respected equally and valued in society.”
— Late Justice J.S. Verma at a meeting of UN Women, Asia and the Pacific, in 2013
The recent murder of 24-year-old Infosys employee S. Swathi in Chennai is an attestation of that. She died in spite of the introduction of Section 354D to the Indian Penal Code in 2013. The section was included in the path-breaking Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, passed in the wake of demands for stricter legislation on sexual crimes against women following the December 2012 gang rape in Delhi.
Section 354D makes stalking a criminal offence punishable by a three-year jail term, which scales up to five years for a second conviction in the same offence. A person can be accused of stalking when he “follows a person and contacts, or attempts to contact such person to foster personal interaction repeatedly, despite a clear indication of disinterest by such person, or whoever monitors the use by a person of the Internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, or watches or spies on a person in a manner that results in a fear of violence or serious alarm or distress in the mind of such person, or interferes with the mental peace of such person…”
Swathi was waylaid by P. Ramkumar, who had been stalking her for three months. Finally, incensed by her lack of interest in him, he allegedly whipped out a sickle and struck her fatally. Senior police officials in Chennai are of the opinion she might have been alive today had she filed a complaint of stalking.
Unlike Swathi, Delhi girl Meenakshi went to the police with a complaint of stalking, leading to the detention of Jai Prakash in 2013. Last July, the 19-year-old was stabbed to death by Prakash. Ostensibly, the complaint failed to save her life.
According to experts, stalking is not taken seriously in India. Senior Janata Dal (United) leader Sharad Yadav’s infamous remark in Parliament in 2013 on stalking being the norm in the country is a case in point. “Everyone has stalked women at some point in their lives,” he had said.
“Police do not take stalking complaints seriously either. They will sit up only after a rape,” says Madhu Das, counsellor, Crisis Intervention Centre of the Delhi-based NGO Sampurna.
The National Crime Records Bureau shows that just 1,091 cases were reported in 2014 — Uttar Pradesh leading with 313 cases, followed by Maharashtra (237) and Madhya Pradesh (167).
Lawyers feel the lack of awareness about Section 354D is one reason behind the small number of cases recorded. “How many women in India know this section exists,” asks Rebecca John, a Supreme Court advocate. “Such cases rarely come to court. It is the state’s duty to make the law known. What is the point of stringent laws if they are not implemented? The IPC only gets fatter.”
Another Supreme Court lawyer, Shilpi Jain, believes the section will work as a preventive measure for stalkers. Laws on crimes against women are all in place, they just need proper implementation, according to her. She had got the rapist convicted in the German rape case in Alwar, in 2006, in a record 11 days at a fast-track court. However, she stresses, “fast-tracks courts need to be time-bound and police need to stop doing shoddy investigations to speed up convictions”.
Stalking can be traumatic and harrowing for victims as they become the subject of unwanted advances, frequent telephone calls, letters, emails, SMSes, notes and gifts. It can even lead to assault, kidnapping and murder.
John adds that long-term ramifications of stalking are serious and need to be nipped in the bud. “Swathi failed to recognise the dangers of stalking. Unfortunately, women don’t feel empowered enough to use the provision,” she maintains. Lawyers and NGOs admit that women are scared about reporting it — for the fear of being ridiculed or interrogated on their role in attracting the unwelcome attention.
Another drawback can be seen in additional sessions court judge Kamini Lau’s judgment in a stalking case in 2014. Dubbing the stalker’s behaviour “psychotic obsessiveness”, she sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment and also recommended psychiatric counselling. She criticised the fact that stalking was introduced as a bailable offence.
Lau further commented that stalking is a continuing crime and never ends with a one-time punishment. She is apprehensive that the stalker will come back with a vengeance and harm the victim once he is out of jail.
Hence, the urgent need to put in place a mechanism that would take care of such aspects. Considering the gravity of the problem, some states in the US, Scotland in the UK, Victoria in Australia, and some other countries have made provisions for restraining orders on stalkers or for surveillance.
The additional commissioner of Chennai police, K. Shankar, argues that a victim can seek a police bond under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). “Under it, a person accused of harassing someone can be made to sign a bond of good behaviour for a period. He can be arrested if he misbehaves during this time,” he says.
In Tamil Nadu, stalking cases are hardly registered under Section 354D. Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998, is preferred since the offender can be convicted for a period of up to seven years and be fined Rs 25,000. According to police, the conviction rates are higher under this act.
“Stalking has become a big issue in metros today,” admits Supreme Court lawyer Ashok Bhan, who handled the high-profile Priyadarshini Mattoo case in the 1990s. He rues the absence of an anti-stalking law then. Calling stalking a psychiatric illness and the prime ingredient in the Mattoo case, Bhan recalls that convict Santosh Singh was not deterred by Mattoo’s police complaints or the cop posted for her protection. He broke into her house, and raped and killed her.
“Laws are in favour of women now, and they have to start exercising them. Why wait for the stalker to hurt and drag it to an extreme end,” says retired Delhi High Court judge R.S. Sodhi, who delivered the judgment in the Mattoo case as also in the Jessica Lal and Naina Sahni murder cases.
Section 354D might have made its way into the statute book; it requires to step out and become a protector force on the ground.
