DATE: 30/06/2025
COURT: High Court of Bombay
BENCH: Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke
FACTS:
The case arises out of an incident reported
by a 17-year-old girl residing in Khapa, Tahsil Katol, District Nagpur, who was
a student of Class 11 at Umri. On 23rd October 2015, around 1:15 PM, while
returning home from school with her cousin, she was allegedly accosted by the
accused, a fellow villager known as “Balya”. Near the agricultural field of one
Dandare Sir, the accused approached her on a motorcycle from the direction of
Sonoli, obstructed her path, held her hands, and insisted that she disclose her
name, declaring that he would not allow her to leave otherwise. He also
expressed his love for her. The victim managed to free herself and went home,
where she narrated the incident to her father.
Based on the victim’s report, an FIR was
registered under Sections 354-A(i) and 354-D(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO
Act). The investigating officer visited the scene, recorded statements of
relevant witnesses, and filed a chargesheet against the accused. During the
trial, five witnesses were examined, including the victim, her cousin, her
father, and the investigating officer. Documentary evidence such as the FIR,
spot panchanama, birth certificate, and arrest memo were also presented. After
evaluating the evidence, the trial court convicted the accused and sentenced
him to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000, with a
default sentence of two months’ simple imprisonment.
Aggrieved by the conviction, the accused preferred the present appeal.
ISSUES:
The central issues in this case were
whether the accused's act of expressing love to a minor girl amounted to sexual
harassment under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), stalking under
Section 354-D of the IPC, and sexual assault under Section 8 of the Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. Specifically, the Court was
tasked with determining whether the accused's single utterance of "I love
you" to the minor, without any physical contact or repeated conduct, could
be construed as having "sexual intent" or constituting "sexual
assault" as defined under the POCSO Act.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The High Court allowed the appeal, setting
aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. It acquitted the
accused of all charges under Sections 354-A and 354-D of the IPC and Section 8
of the POCSO Act. The Court directed the immediate release of the accused from
custody, if not required in any other case, and ordered that any fine amount
paid be refunded.
The Court held that the prosecution had
failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused acted with
"sexual intent" when he expressed his feelings to the minor victim.
The Court emphasized that intention, being a state of mind, must be inferred
from surrounding circumstances. In this case, there was no evidence suggesting
any physical contact, gestures, or behavior from the accused that demonstrated
sexual desire or intent. The utterance “I love you,” made only once and without
repetition or escalation, was not sufficient to establish the accused’s mental
state as one driven by sexual motives. The Court also noted the absence of any
inappropriate body language or eye expressions that could suggest a sexual
advance.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that for
an offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act to be established, there must be a
sexual assault as defined under Section 7, which typically involves physical
contact with sexual intent, such as touching the private parts. Since no such
act or physical interaction was alleged or proven in this case, the conviction
under the POCSO Act was found to be legally unsustainable. The trial court,
according to the High Court, erred by not correctly interpreting the statutory
definitions and by assuming sexual intent without corroborating evidence.
Therefore, the High Court concluded that the trial court's conviction was based
on a misapplication of legal standards, warranting the accused's acquittal.
ANALYSIS:
This
case underscores the critical importance of establishing "sexual
intent" as a prerequisite for conviction under provisions such as Section
8 of the POCSO Act and Section 354-A of the IPC. The High Court's analysis
illustrates that mere verbal expressions of affection or interest, absent any
repeated conduct, physical contact, or suggestive gestures, do not
automatically translate into criminal liability. The judgment reinforces that
intention is a subjective mental element that must be inferred objectively from
the surrounding facts and circumstances. The Court’s insistence on concrete
indicators of such intent, such as explicit gestures or repeated harassing behaviour,
signals a measured approach to distinguishing between inappropriate but
non-criminal conduct and acts warranting penal consequences.
Moreover,
the ruling demonstrates judicial restraint in the criminalization of social
interactions, especially where the alleged conduct involves young individuals
from the same locality and lacks elements of coercion or physical harm. The
Court found that the trial court had failed to correctly apply the statutory
definitions under the POCSO Act, particularly those concerning the meaning of
“sexual assault.” By setting aside the conviction, the High Court reaffirmed
the principle that criminal convictions cannot rest on assumptions about
intent, especially when the evidence on record does not support the elements
required by law. The judgment thereby contributes to a more precise and fair
interpretation of laws designed to protect children from sexual offences,
ensuring they are applied only where clearly warranted.
info@adhwaitha.com