उच्चतम न्यायालय ने यह देखते हुए कि अपील के दौरान शिकायतकर्ता और अभियुक्त ने आपस में विवाह कर लिया है, भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 354D (Section 354D) और धारा 506 (Section 506) के तहत पीछा करने (stalking) और आपराधिक धमकी (criminal intimidation) की दोषसिद्धि (conviction) को रद्द कर दिया।
In a recent Supreme Court judgment, the Supreme Court (SC) of India quashed the conviction of Dasari Srikanth (appellant) for offences under Section 354D (stalking) and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. The man was acquitted after noting that the convict and the complainant married each other during the pendency of the appeal before the top court. The SC bench observed “The offences under Section 354D IPC and Section 506 IPC are personal to the complainant and the accused appellant. The fact that the appellant and the complainant have married each other during the pendency of this appeal gives rise to a reasonable belief that both were involved in some kind of relationship even when the offences alleged were said to have been committed.” The matter was heard by a two-judge bench constituting Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
The top court was hearing an appeal preferred by the appellant for assailing the judgment passed by the Telangana High Court upholding his conviction for offences under Sections 354D and 506-Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but reducing the sentence of imprisonment for both the offences to three months. Dasari Srikanth (accused-appellant) was tried by the Special Fast Track Court, Suryapet. Further, the trial Court acquitted him for the offences under Section 11 read with Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, but at the same time, convicted and sentenced him for offences under Sections 354D and 506-Part I IPC.
After hearing the matter, the SC bench noted “Since the appellant and the complainant have married each other, the affirmation of the judgment rendered by the High Court would have the disastrous consequence on the accused-appellant being sent to jail which in turn could put his matrimonial relationship with the complainant in danger.” It added, “we are inclined to exercise the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for quashing the conviction of the accused-appellant as recorded by the learned trial Court and modified by the High Court.” Therefore, the bench quashed and set aside the conviction of Dasari Srikanth.