The Court made the observation while setting aside the conviction of a man booked under POCSO Act and IPC for stalking and sexually harassing a minor girl.
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently ruled that simply saying “I love you” to a woman does not constitute sexual harassment unless accompanied by behavior that clearly indicates sexual intent [Ravindra s/o Laxman Narete v State of Maharashtra].
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke made this observation while overturning the conviction of a man who had been charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for stalking and sexually harassing a minor girl.
“Words expressed “I Love You” would not by itself amount to “sexual intent” as contemplated by the legislature. There should be something more which must suggest that the real intention is to drag in the angle of sex, if the words uttered are to be taken as conveying sexual intent. It should reflect by the act,” the judgment dated June 30 stated.
The case stemmed from an incident reported on October 23, 2015, in Khapa village near Nagpur. A 17-year-old girl, then a Class 11 student, was walking home from school with her cousin when the accused, a local resident identified as Balya, allegedly approached them on his motorcycle near a farmland area.
As per the prosecution’s account, he grabbed the girl’s hand, demanded to know her name, and told her, “I love you.”
Later that day, the girl informed her father, who promptly lodged a police complaint.
After the investigation, the accused was booked under Section 354A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (for physical contact and advances involving unwelcome sexual overtures), Section 354D(1)(i) (stalking), and Section 8 of the POCSO Act (sexual assault involving physical contact with a minor without penetration).
In 2017, the Additional Sessions Judge in Nagpur convicted him and imposed a sentence of three years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹5,000.
The man challenged his conviction, asserting that the incident lacked sexual intent, did not involve repeated behavior to constitute stalking, and involved no touching of private parts, which is necessary to prove sexual assault under the POCSO Act.
His lawyer also questioned the evidence of the victim’s age. However, the High Court held that the prosecution had sufficiently established her age through a birth certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar of Katol Nagar Parishad. The Court emphasized that such a certificate qualifies as a public document and is admissible under Sections 74 and 77 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Nevertheless, the Court found that the prosecution had failed to adequately prove the mental element required to sustain the charges.
“On considering the evidence of the prosecution, in order to ascertain the state of mind of the accused, there is not a single circumstance indicating that the accused’s real intention was to establish sexual contact with the victim. There is no evidence on record showing that there was any gesture in the nature of “eye expression” or body language of the accused. Moreover, “utterances” in question have not been made repeatedly, but it was made only once. Such being nature of evidence, “utterances” by the accused addressing the victim and heard by PW2,” the Court said.
The Court further clarified that merely saying “I love you” cannot be deemed a sexually motivated act unless accompanied by additional circumstances that suggest an intention to pursue or initiate sexual contact.
Regarding the stalking allegation, the High Court observed that the incident occurred only once and lacked the repeated following or attempts at communication required to establish the offence under Section 354D of the IPC.
Concerning the POCSO charge, the Court stressed that for an act to qualify as sexual assault under Section 7, there must be physical contact driven by sexual intent, specifically involving private parts or conduct that is clearly sexual in nature.
Finding no proof of sexual intent or recurring behavior, the Court set aside the conviction and directed the man’s immediate release.