Merely saying “I love you” to a woman does not amount to sexual harassment unless the words are accompanied by conduct that clearly reflects sexual intent, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently held [Ravindra s/o Laxman Narete v State of Maharashtra].
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke made the observation while setting aside the conviction of a man booked under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and provisions 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 arose from an incident reported on October 23, 2015 from Nagpur's Khapa village. A 17-year-old girl, then studying in class 11, was returning home from school with her cousin when the accused, a local man known as Balya, allegedly intercepted them on his motorcycle near an agricultural field.
According to the prosecution, he caught the girl’s hand, insisted she tell him her name, and said, “I love you.”
The girl later told her father, who filed a police complaint the same day.
Following investigation, the accused was charged under Section 354A(1)(i) of the IPC (for making physical contact and advances with 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 found him guilty and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000.
The man appealed the conviction, arguing that there was no sexual intent in the encounter, no repeated contact to amount to stalking, and no touching of private parts as required to establish sexual assault under POCSO.
His counsel also contested the proof of the victim’s age but the High Court found that the prosecution had properly established her age through a birth certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar of Katol Nagar Parishad. The Court noted that such a document is a public record and admissible under Sections 74 and 77 of the Indian Evidence Act.
However, the High Court found the evidence lacking in substance when it came to proving the mental element required for the offences.
“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.
It further held that the phrase 'I love you' cannot automatically be construed as a sexually motivated act unless supported by other circumstances indicating an intent to engage in or pursue sexual contact.
As for the stalking charge, the High Court noted that the alleged act occurred only once and did not involve repeated following or attempts at communication which are essential elements under Section 354D of the IPC.
On the POCSO charge, the Court emphasized that sexual assault under Section 7 of the Act must involve physical contact with sexual intent and specifically target private parts or be otherwise clearly sexual in nature.
Finding no evidence of sexual intent or repeated conduct, the Court quashed the conviction and ordered the man’s immediate release.
Advocate Sonali Khobragade appeared for the accused.
Additional Public Prosecutor MJ Khan appeared for the State.
[Read Judgment]