Merely saying ‘I love you' without sexual intent isn't sexual harassment, says HC

Indian Express

01-07-2025

The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court on Monday, overturned the conviction of a man accused of sexually harassing a minor, ruling that merely saying, 'I love you' does not, in itself, amount to sexual intent.
The accused was previously found guilty of offences under sections 354 A (i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The case stems from a report filed by the then 17-year-old- minor victim on 23 October, 2015. She had alleged that the accused came on his motorcycle, held her hands and said, 'I love you', while she was walking to her home with her cousin.
Based on this report, the accused was booked. The trial court subsequently convicted the accused, sentencing him to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000, and two more months if he failed to pay the fine.
The accused's lawyer, Sonali Khobragade, argued that there was previous enmity between the families and that the prosecution had failed to examine any independent witnesses. The lawyer also argued that the age of the victim was not proved.
The prosecution, on the other hand, relied on the girl's testimony, along with statements from her cousin, who accompanied her during the incident and another witness, and her birth certificate to support their case.
However, the High Court, confirmed that the victim's age was indeed proven by a valid public document (birth certificate),.
The court emphasised that merely saying 'I love you' by itself does not amount to 'sexual intent' as contemplated by the legislature.
Intention, the court noted, is something that has to be gathered from all surrounding circumstances.
'In this case, there was no inappropriate touch beyond holding the hand, no repeat behaviour, no suggestive body language, and no attempt to take the interaction any further,' the court stated.
The court said that 'intention' is an inner state of mind that must be determined from surrounding facts and circumstances. For an act to be considered 'sexual' or to have 'sexual intent', it must be related to or associated with sex, or involve physical contact or express sexual overtures, indicating an intention to 'drag in the angle of sex'.
The court observed that while the girl was indeed a minor, the alleged act did not meet the definition of 'sexual assault' under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, which involves touching private parts or making sexually motivated contact.
The judgment also took note of the trial court's failure to carefully assess what qualifies as 'sexual intent' under the law.
With this, the High Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the accused of all charges, and directed that he be released from jail immediately, unless he is involved in any other case.
Any fine paid during the trial process is also to be refunded.