Merely Saying 'I Love You' To Girl Not Sexual Harassment Under POCSO Act: Chhattisgarh High Court

While upholding the order of acquittal of the respondent/accused, the Bench of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal observed –

“...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.”

Also read: Merely Saying 'I Love You' Without Any Sexual Intent Is Not Sexual Harassment: Bombay High Court

To put briefly, in the afternoon of October 14, 2019, while the prosecutrix (a 15 year old girl) was returning home from the school along with her friends, the respondent approached her and expressed his love for her by shouting “I love you”. She also alleged that the respondent had also harassed her previously for which he was reprimanded by the teachers.

Based on the complaint of the girl, an FIR under Sections 354-D (stalking) and 509 (insulting modesty of woman) of IPC read with Section 8 (punishment for sexual harassment) of the POCSO Act along with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act was registered. Upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Dhamtari.

The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, held that the respondent is not involved in the alleged crime and accordingly, he was acquitted from all the charges. The State preferred this appeal against the acquittal under Section 378 of the CrPC.

The High Court was satisfied about minority of the victim from her birth certificate which was issued by the competent authority under the Janm-Mrityu Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1969 much before the incident. The next question which cropped up for consideration was whether the act of the respondent attracts the offence defined under Section 7 and punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

Reliance was placed upon the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Attorney General for India v. Satish, LL 2021 SC 656 where discussions were made on the connotation of the words “touch” and “physical contact” used in the aforesaid provision. It was held that, if the act of touching the sexual part of the body or any other act involving physical contact is done with “sexual intent”, then it would fall within the definition of “sexual assault”.

“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,” the Court held.

Having regard for the aforesaid position of law, Justice Agrawal examined the facts of the present case. He held that the testimonies of the prosecutrix and her friends only indicate that the respondent merely shouted “I love you” in order to express his love towards her. There is nothing on record to suggest that the said solitary expression was coupled with “sexual desire”. Thus, the alleged act would not attract the rigours of Section 7 of the POCSO Act and hence, not a “sexual assault”.

The Court also found the respondent not guilty under Section 354-D of IPC since the testimonies of the prosecutrix as well as her friends did not reveal that she had ever shown 'disinterest' to the advances made by the respondent. Similarly, the offence under Section 509 of IPC was held not made out as no evidence suggested that the respondent used filthy language or abused the victim in order to insult her modesty.

Lastly, the charge under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was also held untenable since there is nothing to show that the respondent did the alleged act with the knowledge that the prosecutrix belongs to SC or ST category.

Therefore, the appeal was rejected, upholding the order of acquittal of the respondent.

Case Title: State of Chhattisgarh v. Rupendra Das Manikpuri

Case No: ACQA No. 215 of 2022

Date of Judgment: July 22, 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. R.N. Pusty, Govt Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download The Order