Saying 'I love you' without sexual intent is not sexual harassment: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently held that merely saying “I love you” to a minor girl does not amount to sexual harassment under Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

Justice Sanjay S Agrawal held that for such an act to be an offence, it has to be accompanied by ‘sexual intent’.

The Court made the observation on July 22 while upholding the acquittal of one Rupendra Das Manikpuri (respondent) in a POCSO case registered against him for telling "I love you" to a 15-year-old girl.

"The respondent shouted and expressed his love towards her saying "xxx I Love You". It is to be seen at this juncture that it was his solitary act while showing his “expression of love”, and a close scrutiny of her statements, vis-a-vis, the statements of her friends, would reveal the fact that it was not made with an intention of his “sexual desire”. It, thus, appears that the alleged expression of him alone would not constitute “sexual assault” as provided under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. None of the ingredients provided under the aforesaid provision are, thus, found to be established attributing him for the commission of the alleged crime. In view thereof, the respondent cannot be held to be guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act," the Court said.

By way of background, Manikpuri was accused of saying “I love you” to a 15-year-old girl while she was returning from school.

She also alleged that he had previously harassed her.

Based on her complaint, a first information report (FIR) was registered under Sections 354D (stalking) and 509 (outrage of modesty) of Indian Penal Code, Section 8 (sexual assault) of the POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

However, the trial court acquitted Manikpuri after finding no evidence of the alleged offences.

The State filed the present appeal before the High Court challenging the acquittal.

The High Court observed that neither the victim’s testimony nor that of her friends indicated any sexual intent on the part of the accused.

"her version is that when she was in Class 8th, at that time also, the respondent has misbehaved her, owing to which, she had made a complaint to her parents and the Teachers and, the Teachers of the School had reprimanded him for his alleged act. Although, it was stated as such, but the alleged of her version that on the said fateful day, the respondent had abused her while using filthy words are, however, not found placed in her written complaint (Ex.P-7) lodged on the said day itself, nor disinterest of her was shown from her testimony, nor was even found to be corroborated by her friends," the Court said.

Therefore, it proceeded to acquit Manikpuri of the charge under Section 354-D of the IPC, noting that the statements of the prosecutrix and her friends did not indicate that she had ever expressed disinterest in the respondent’s advances.

Likewise, the charge under Section 509 IPC was found unsustainable by the Court as there was no evidence showing that the respondent used obscene language or verbally abused the victim to insult her modesty.

It further noted that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused was aware of the victim’s caste, making the invocation of the SC/ST Act unsustainable.

"The trial Court has failed to give any of its finding to this effect. Although, no finding to this regard was recorded by the trial Court, but from a bare perusal of her alleged report (Ex.P-7) and her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., marked as Ex.P-8 and her testimony, would, however, show she has not stated even a whisper that the respondent has committed the alleged offence because of knowing the fact that she is a member of ‘Scheduled Caste community’."

With these observations, the acquittal was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

Government Advocate RN Pusty appeared for the State.

Advocate Shobhit Koshta appeared for the accused.

[Read Judgment]