Expressing “I Love You” Would Not By Itself Amount To Sexual Intent: Bombay High Court
The Bombay Excessive Court docket held that expressing “I Love You” wouldn’t by itself quantity to a sexual intent as contemplated by the legislature.
The Nagpur Bench held thus in a Felony Attraction filed by an accused man towards the Judgment of the Extra Classes Decide, which convicted him below Part 354-A(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Part 8 of the Safety of Youngsters from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
A Single Bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke noticed, “… the way of thinking, have to be to determine some kind of bodily contact or have to be associated to or related to intercourse or indicative of involvement of intercourse within the relationship, whether it is to be thought of as sexual. Phrases uttered ought to be with “sexual intent” related to indicative of involvement of intercourse or bodily contact or expressing sexual overtures. Phrases expressed “I Love You” wouldn’t by itself quantity to “sexual intent” as contemplated by the legislature.”
The Bench added that there ought to be one thing extra which should counsel that the actual intention is to pull within the angle of intercourse, if the phrases uttered are to be taken as conveying sexual intent.
Advocate Sonali Khobragade appeared on behalf of the Appellant/Accused whereas Extra Public Prosecutor (APP) M.J. Khan appeared on behalf of the Respondent/State.
Factual Background
A minor lady (sufferer) aged 17 years filed a report in 2015, alleging that the accused was from the identical village the place she resided. At about 1:15 p.m. when she returned to bus cease and was continuing alongside together with her cousin by stroll in the direction of her home, on the agricultural discipline of 1 Sir, the accused allegedly got here on his motorbike and communicated her by holding her palms and expressing that except and till she discloses her title, he is not going to permit her to go.
It was additional alleged that he expressed “I really like you” to her and thereafter, she rescued herself from his clutches and went residence, whereby she disclosed the identical incident to her father. Based mostly on this, the police registered the crime below Sections 354-A(i) and 354-D(1)(i) of the IPC and below Part 8 of the POCSO Act. The Trial Court docket held the accused responsible and sentenced him to bear rigorous imprisonment for 3 years together with a advantageous of Rs. 5,000/-. Being aggrieved by his conviction, the accused was earlier than the Excessive Court docket.
Reasoning
The Excessive Court docket after listening to the arguments from each side, famous, “Within the current case, allegations aren’t of use of any Web or E-mail. The allegations used towards the accused are that when the sufferer was continuing, the accused contacted her solely as soon as and insisted her to reveal her title and expressed in phrases, “I Love You.”
The Court docket stated {that a} naked perusal of the proof of prosecution witnesses nowhere reveals that with a “sexual intent”, these phrases, “I Love You”, are utilized by the accused.
“Admittedly, “intention” is interior compartment of thoughts of that individual and must be decided from surrounding details and circumstances. If someone says that he’s in love with one other individual or expresses his emotions itself wouldn’t quantity to an “intent” exhibiting some kind of his “sexual intention”. What constitutes such “sexuality” or “sexual intent” and what’s not, is a query of truth”, it additionally held.
Furthermore, the Court docket famous that with a purpose to confirm the way of thinking of the accused, there may be not a single circumstance indicating that the accused’s actual intention was to determine sexual contact with the sufferer.
“There isn’t any proof on report exhibiting that there was any gesture within the nature of “eye expression” or physique language of the accused. Furthermore, “utterances” in query haven’t been made repeatedly, however it was made solely as soon as. Such being nature of proof, “utterances” by the accused addressing the sufferer and heard by PW2 the cousin of the sufferer aren’t enough to point any “sexual intent” on a part of the accused”, it additional noticed.
The Court docket added that even the offence below Part 8 of the POCSO Act, will not be made out as there is no such thing as a allegation that both the accused with “sexual intent” touched non-public a part of the sufferer described below Part 7 of the POCSO Act involving bodily contact and, due to this fact, the offence below Part 8 can also be not made out.
“The “sexual assault” with out penetration has not been proved by the prosecution past cheap doubt. … Discovered Decide of the trial courtroom has not thought of the definition of “sexual assault” given below Sections 7 of the POCSO Act and punishment below Part 8 of the POCSO Act and with out contemplating the true import of the supply, convicted the accused, which is inaccurate”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Excessive Court docket allowed the Attraction, quashed the impugned Judgment, and acquitted the accused.
Trigger Title- Ravindra v. State of Maharashtra (Impartial Quotation: 2025:BHC-NAG:6106)
