Introduction
In a ruling which brought forward the court’s stand on the issue, the Chhattisgarh High Court reported that to say “I love you” to a minor does not in itself amount to sexual harassment as defined by the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Also the court supported the acquittal of the youth which was challenged under POCSO and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act which it said was proved deficient in terms of sexual intent.
Background
In October 14, 2019 a case came to light in Dhamtari district of Chhattisgarh which reported a 15 year old girl’s claim that she was approached by a young man with love which in the past had been advances which were unwanted. Per the girl’s report the accused was charged with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, Sections of the Indian Penal Code which include 354D and 509, Section 3(2)(va) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act which amends the SC/ST Act. The judge found for the defendant on the issue of insufficient evidence which the State took up to the High Court.
Key Points
Expression Alone Not Enough: The High Court ruled out that which which is labeled as “I love you” in and of itself is sexual harassment, we are to see that there was also sexual intent or physical action.
Sexual Intent is Crucial: Citing the decision in Attorney General for India v. Satish (2021) the court reported that it is of the view that intent has to be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to invoke Section 7 of POCSO.
No Evidence of Caste-Based Offence: The SC/ST charges were thrown out because the accused was not aware of the girl’s caste.
Inadequate Investigation: The court criticized that the police did not check the victim’s age which they thought was a very careless and inadequate response.
Recent Development
On 29th July 2025 Justice Sanjay S. Agarwal while functioning as a single judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the States appeal and gave support to the trial court’s decision of the accused’s acquittal. Also he brought out that for “I love you” type of stand alone comments which are not sexual in nature PoCOSS provisions do not apply unless there is a issue of sexual intent or of a repetitive nature.
Conclusion
This ruling reasserts that for conviction under POCSO there must be presentable proof of sexual intent which alone can lead to a charge, not just emotional or verbal outbursts. Also the court brought to fore the issue of protection of children which is of great import but at the same time it brought out the requirement of the law to be applied rationally and fairly. Reasonably, it puts forth a vital necessity for law enforcers and the public, which is that we focus on serious crimes and leave alone what may be misconstrued as criminal by-product of misinterpretation of social conduct.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has over 20 years of experience in various sectors and practice areas. PrimeLegall falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY AYUSHI TRIVEDI
