“Saying ‘I Love You’ Not Sexual Harassment Unless Accompanied by Conduct Suggesting Sexual Intent”: Bombay HC Acquits Man Under POCSO

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has acquitted a man convicted under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), holding that mere expression of romantic interest without sexual intent does not amount to sexual harassment under the law.

Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke, while setting aside trial court’s conviction under Section 354-A(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, observed,

“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".

While the Court did accept the validity of the victim’s birth certificate, confirming she was a minor (born on May 12, 1999), it concluded that the minor status alone could not attract POCSO provisions without fulfilling other statutory requirements like sexual intent and physical contact.

“Admittedly, intention is inner compartment of mind of that person and has to be determined from surrounding facts and circumstances. If somebody says that he is in love with another person or expresses his feelings itself would not amount to an intent showing some sort of his sexual intention. What constitutes such sexuality or sexual intent and what is not, is a question of fact”, Court added.

Background of the Case

The case arose out of a complaint by a 17-year-old girl, a student of Class 11, who alleged that on October 23, 2015, while returning home with her cousin, the accused Ravindra Narete approached her on a motorcycle near an agricultural field in Katol, Nagpur district. 

He allegedly caught her hand, refused to let her go until she disclosed her name, and said “I love you.” 

The FIR was registered the same day, attracting charges under Sections 354-A(i) and 354-D(1)(i) of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

The trial court had convicted the appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three years along with a fine of ₹5,000.

Rationale by the Court

On Section 354-A IPC (sexual harassment), the Court emphasized that:

“The expression sexual intent is a question of fact and it is to be determined on the basis of the evidence. If somebody says that he is in love with another person or expresses his feelings itself would not amount to an ‘intent’ showing some sort of his sexual intention.”

Further, referring to the POCSO charge under Section 8 (punishing sexual assault), the Court noted that Section 7 requires proof of physical contact with sexual intent involving specific body parts or any other act of sexual intent. The Court held that:

“There is no evidence on record showing that there was any gesture in the nature of eye expression or body language of the accused… Utterances in question have not been made repeatedly, but it was made only once.”

The Court also pointed out that the trial judge failed to appreciate the correct definition of “sexual assault” under POCSO and erred in convicting the appellant without evidence showing sexual intent.

Case Title: Ravindra s/o. Laxman Narete v. State of Maharashtra