Expressing “I Love You” Would Not By Itself Amount To Sexual Intent: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court observed that 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.
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke, Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench
The Bombay High Court held that expressing “I Love You” would not by itself amount to a sexual intent as contemplated by the legislature.
The Nagpur Bench held thus in a Criminal Appeal filed by an accused man against the Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, which convicted him under Section 354-A(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
A Single Bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke observed, “… the state of mind, must be to establish some sort of physical contact or must be related to or associated with sex or indicative of involvement of sex in the relationship, if it is to be considered as sexual. Words uttered should be with “sexual intent” associated with indicative of involvement of sex or physical contact or expressing sexual overtures. Words expressed “I Love You” would not by itself amount to “sexual intent” as contemplated by the legislature.”
The Bench added that 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.
Advocate Sonali Khobragade appeared on behalf of the Appellant/Accused while Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) M.J. Khan appeared on behalf of the Respondent/State.
Factual Background
A minor girl (victim) aged 17 years filed a report in 2015, alleging that the accused was from the same village where she resided. At about 1:15 p.m. when she returned to bus stop and was proceeding along with her cousin by walk towards her house, at the agricultural field of one Sir, the accused allegedly came on his motorcycle and communicated her by holding her hands and expressing that unless and until she discloses her name, he will not allow her to go.
It was further alleged that he expressed “I love you” to her and thereafter, she rescued herself from his clutches and went home, wherein she disclosed the same incident to her father. Based on this, the police registered the crime under Sections 354-A(i) and 354-D(1)(i) of the IPC and under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The Trial Court held the accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Being aggrieved by his conviction, the accused was before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “In the present case, allegations are not of use of any Internet or E-mail. 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.”
The Court said that a bare perusal of the evidence of prosecution witnesses nowhere reveals that with a “sexual intent”, these words, “I Love You”, are used by the accused.
“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”, it also held.
Moreover, the Court noted that in order to ascertain the state of mind of the accused, there is not a single circumstance indicating that the accused’s real intention was to establish sexual contact with the victim.
“There is no evidence on record showing that there was any gesture in the nature of “eye expression” or body language of the accused. Moreover, “utterances” in question have not been made repeatedly, but it was made only once. Such being nature of evidence, “utterances” by the accused addressing the victim and heard by PW2 the cousin of the victim are not sufficient to indicate any “sexual intent” on part of the accused”, it further observed.
The Court added that even the offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, is not made out as there is no allegation that either the accused with “sexual intent” touched private part of the victim described under Section 7 of the POCSO Act involving physical contact and, therefore, the offence under Section 8 is also not made out.
“The “sexual assault” without penetration has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. … 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 of the POCSO Act and without considering the true import of the provision, convicted the accused, which is erroneous”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal, quashed the impugned Judgment, and acquitted the accused.
Cause Title- Ravindra v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:6106)
