Saying 'I Love You' Not Sexual Harassment Without Proven Intent: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court has acquitted a youth accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, stating that merely saying "I love you" does not amount to sexual harassment unless clear sexual intent is established. A single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay S Agarwal upheld the verdict of the trial court and dismissed the appeal filed by the state government, observing that the prosecution failed to provide adequate evidence to prove either the accused's intent or the age of the victim.

The case originated from the Kurud police station area of Dhamtari district, where a 15-year-old schoolgirl had alleged that while she was returning home, the accused saw her and said "I love you." She also claimed that the youth had harassed her earlier on multiple occasions. Based on her complaint, the police registered a case under sections 354D (stalking) and 509 (outraging the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code, along with section 8 of the POCSO Act and section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

However, the trial court acquitted the accused due to lack of evidence, leading the state government to challenge the acquittal in the High Court. During the hearing, the High Court noted that neither the testimony of the victim nor that of her friends demonstrated any sexual intent behind the accused's actions. The court further highlighted that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused was aware of the victim's caste, rendering the application of the SC/ST Act baseless.

Justice Agarwal emphasised that an isolated instance of saying "I love you," without repeated contact or suggestive behaviour, does not fulfil the legal criteria for sexual harassment under the POCSO Act. Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Attorney General for India vs Satish (2021), the court underscored that a sexual overture must be supported by clear intent for it to fall under the purview of sexual harassment as defined in Section 7 of the Act.

The court also raised concerns over the failure to verify the victim's age and described the investigation as inadequate and careless. Concluding that there was no sufficient evidence to convict the youth, the High Court upheld the trial court's acquittal and dismissed the state's appeal.