Saying ‘I Love You’ Doesn’t Amount to Sexual Harassment or Stalking: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Convicted Under POCSO and IPC Sections 354A & 354D

“Mere Holding of Hand Without Sexual Intent Does Not Attract POCSO Offence”: In a significant ruling Bombay High Court set aside the conviction of a man under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and sections 354A (sexual harassment) and 354D (stalking) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), holding that mere holding of the hand and uttering “I love you” without any overt act of sexual intent does not constitute an offence under these provisions.

Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke observed that “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.”

The Court categorically held that the trial court erred in convicting the accused without a proper appreciation of the essential ingredients of the offences under the IPC and the POCSO Act.

“Sexual Intent Must Reflect In Action—Mere Utterance Is Insufficient”: High Court’s Key Observation

The case arose from an incident dated 23rd October 2015, where the victim, a 17-year-old girl, alleged that while walking with her cousin, the accused stopped her, held her hand, and uttered “I love you”, refusing to let her proceed unless she disclosed her name. She managed to free herself and informed her father, following which the police registered offences under Sections 354A(i), 354D(1)(i) of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

The trial court convicted the accused, sentencing him to 3 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine.

However, the High Court, while carefully scrutinizing the evidence, found that the essential element of “sexual intent” was glaringly absent.

Quoting the judgment, the Court observed, “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’ is a question of fact.”

Stalking Requires Repeated Conduct—Single Instance Not Sufficient

The Court dismantled the conviction under Section 354D IPC (stalking), stating unambiguously that, “The allegations used against the accused are that when the victim was proceeding, the accused contacted her only once and insisted her to disclose her name and expressed in words, ‘I Love You’. This single interaction cannot satisfy the statutory requirement of repeated contact.”

Justice Joshi-Phalke further explained, “In order that this offence is committed, there must be following of a woman and contacting her or attempting to contact her to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such a woman.” None of this was found on record.

POCSO Offence Requires Physical Contact With Sexual Intent—Both Are Missing

The High Court underscored the precise legal definition of “sexual assault” under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, stating that the offence involves physical contact with sexual intent, particularly directed towards private parts or involving an act with an overt sexual nature.

The Court found no evidence supporting this, remarking, “There is no allegation that the accused with ‘sexual intent’ touched private parts of the victim involving physical contact, and therefore, the offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act is also not made out.”

In its sharp critique of the trial court’s reasoning, the Court stated, “Learned Judge of the trial court has not considered the definition of ‘sexual assault’ given under Sections 7 of the POCSO Act and punishment under Section 8 and, without considering the true import of the provision, convicted the accused, which is erroneous.”

“Intention Is The Inner Compartment Of Mind”—Sexual Intent Must Be Inferred From Circumstances

Citing the Bombay High Court decision in Bandu Vitthalrao Borwar vs. State of Maharashtra, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 16128, the Court elaborated on the meaning of “sexual” and “intent”.

The judgment reads, “Words expressed ‘I Love You’ would not by itself amount to ‘sexual intent’... It should reflect by the act. 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.”

The Court further emphasized that “intention is the inner compartment of mind of that person and has to be determined from surrounding facts and circumstances.”

Proof of Age Established But Irrelevant To Outcome Due To Lack Of Offence

Though the defence had questioned the victim’s age, the Court dismissed this argument. It upheld the admissibility of the birth certificate under Section 35 and Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, observing that the “birth certificate is a public document and primary evidence which can be proved by production in view of Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act.”

The Court concluded that the prosecution proved the victim was a minor. However, since the alleged acts did not constitute any offence under the IPC or the POCSO Act, the age became irrelevant to the ultimate outcome.

Conviction Set Aside—Accused Acquitted Of All Charges

Delivering the operative portion of the judgment, Justice Joshi-Phalke pronounced, “Neither offences under Section 354-A and 354-D of the IPC nor under Section 8 of the POCSO Act are made out against the accused.” Accordingly, the conviction was set aside.

The Court directed that “The accused is acquitted of offences for which he was charged and convicted. He be released from the jail forthwith, if he is not required in any other crime.” Any fine paid was ordered to be refunded, and the bail bond stood discharged.

Date of Decision: 30 June 2025