Merely Saying 'I Love You' Without Any Sexual Intent Is Not Sexual Harassment: Bombay High Court
Merely expressing 'I Love You' does not by itself amount to an offence of sexual harassment if not accompanied with words or acts reflecting 'sexual intent' the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court held on June 30.
Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke noted that the accused in the instant case had only said 'I Love You' to the minor girl, while she was on her way home from tuition classes and even insisted her to disclose her name, once.
"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. 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. it should reflect by the act," Justice Joshi-Phalke held in the order.
According to the prosecution case, the victim's family lodged a complaint against the appellant on October 23, 2015, accusing him of sexually harassing their minor daughter. The FIR stated that the accused came on his motorcycle while the victim, then studying in class 11 was returning home. He contacted her on the road and told 'I Love You' to her and even insisted her to disclose her name.
Scared by the incident, the victim told her parents about the act and subsequently, an FIR was lodged.
However, Justice Joshi-Phalke noted that the evidence of prosecution witnesses nowhere reveals that with a “sexual intent”, these words, “I Love You”, were uttered by the accused.
The expression 'sexual intent' is a question of fact and it is to be determined on the basis of the evidence. In order to understand intention of the accused behind such utterances, one has to look into the entire evidence of the prosecution, the judge said.
"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," the judge opined.
With these observations, the bench quashed and set aside the August 18, 2017 judgment of a Sessions Court in Nagpur by which the appellant was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 5,000.
Appearance:
Advocate Sonali Khobragade appeared for the Appellant.
Additional Public Prosecutor MJ Khan represented the State.
Case Title: Ravindra s/o Laxman Narete vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal 471 of 2017)