Saying "I Love You" An Expression Of Love: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Acquittal Of POCSO Accused
|The Appeal before the Chhattisgarh High Court was filed by the State questioning the legality of the judgment acquitting the accused.
While upholding the acquittal of a man in a case registered under the POCSO Act, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the solitary act of saying ‘I love you’ was not made with an intention of “sexual desire” and the alleged expression alone would not constitute “sexual assault” as provided under Section 7 of the POCSO Act.
The Appeal before the High Court was filed by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment acquitting the respondent/accused with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 354-D, 509 of the IPC read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and under Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal stated, “…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.
Government Advocate R. N. Pusty represented the Petitioner while Advocate Shobhit Koshta represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
It was alleged by the prosecutrix, a 15 year-old-girl at the time of incident, that when she was returning home from the School along with her friends, the respondent/accused came and shouted while expressing his love, saying "xxx I Love You" (xxx denotes the name of the prosecutrix). It was alleged further that previously, she was also harassed by him, for which he was reprimanded, but he continued to harass her. Based upon the aforesaid complaint, a case came to be registered against the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 354-D and 509 of the IPC read with Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. The trial Court held that the respondent was not involved in connection with the alleged crime and, accordingly, he was acquitted. It was in such circumstances that the appeal came to be filed.
Reasoning
Addressing the issue regarding the age of the prosecutrix on the alleged fateful day, i.e. October 14, 2019, the Bench took note of a birth certificate of hers which was seized from her father. The certificate was issued by the competent authority under the JanmMrityu Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1969, and it had its evidentiary value, particularly when its ‘authenticity’ was not disputed despite its recovery. It was evident that the prosecutrix was a minor on the day when the alleged incident had taken place.
Referring to the provisions of the POCSO Act, the Bench noted that the most important ingredient for constituting the offence of sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO Act is the “sexual intent” and not, a physical contact with the child and for proving the charge of “sexual assault” under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, the prosecution is not required to prove a physical contact of the offender with the child.
Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench took note of the solitary act where the respondent shouted and expressed his love towards her saying "xxx I Love You". As per the Bench, the alleged expression of him alone would not constitute “sexual assault” as provided under Section 7 of the POCSO Act.
On the allegations, intending to insult the modesty of the prosecutrix, it was deposed by the prosecutrix that the respondent had shouted at her saying "xxx I Love You" and when she avoided him, he uttered filthy and obscene words. However, the Bench noticed that her alleged version was neither reflected in her written complaint nor was it found to be corroborated by her friends. The same was not even found to be supported by her father and mother. “It, thus, appears that except the alleged ‘expression’ of him towards the prosecutrix, she was not found to be insulted by using filthy words, as alleged by her. Her version to this effect is, therefore, not found to be trustworthy and/or, would be sufficient to implicate the respondent for the commission of the alleged offence under Section 509 of IPC”, the Bench mentioned.
It also could not be said that the alleged act was done by the respondent with an intention that the prosecutrix belongs to the ‘Scheduled Caste community’, so as to hold him guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
Thus, finding the appeal to be devoid of merit, the Bench dismissed the same.
Cause Title: State Of Chhattisgarh v. Rupendra Das Manikpuri (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:34885)
Appearance
Appellant: Government Advocate R. N. Pusty
Respondent: Advocate Shobhit Koshta