Is a Love Confession Enough to File a Sexual Harassment Case?

The expanding contours of sexual harassment law in India have provided crucial safeguards to victims, especially women and children. However, with this expansion comes the responsibility to delineate what kind of conduct legally constitutes sexual harassment or assault. In a landmark judgment delivered on 30 June 2025, the Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench examined whether a simple declaration of love—”I love you”—can amount to a criminal offence, particularly one involving sexual harassment under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).

Case Background

The case arose from an incident dated 23 October 2015, in the village of Khapa, Nagpur District. A 17-year-old girl (the complainant) alleged that while returning home from school with her cousin, the appellant—25-year-old Ravindra Narete, a local resident—approached her near an agricultural field, caught her hand, and said, “I love you.”

The incident led to the registration of an FIR under:

• Section 354-A(1)(i), IPC – Sexual harassment involving physical contact with sexual intent.
• Section 354-D(1)(i), IPC – Stalking.
• Section 8 of the POCSO Act – Sexual assault on a minor girl.

The Trial Court convicted the accused in 2017 and sentenced him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000. This conviction was challenged before the High Court.

Issues

The High Court’s judgment, delivered by Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke on 30 June 2025, centred on several pivotal legal issues:

• Does the act of verbally expressing affection (“I love you”) constitute sexual harassment under Section 354-A IPC?
• Does such an act, when involving a minor, fall within the ambit of sexual assault under Section 8 of the POCSO Act?
• Is a single incident of following and physical contact sufficient to establish the offence of stalking under Section 354-D IPC?
• What evidentiary standard is required to prove “sexual intent”?

Trial Court’s Findings

The trial court relied on the statements of the complainant and her cousin, as well as the arrest memo, FIR, spot panchanama, and birth certificate. It held that the accused’s act of holding the girl’s hand and expressing love constituted sexual harassment and sexual assault, particularly since the girl was a minor under the POCSO Act.

High Court’s Analysis

1. Assessing Sexual Harassment under Section 354-A IPC

Section 354-A criminalises physical contact and advances involving “unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures”, as well as demands for sexual favours and sexually coloured remarks.

The High Court clarified that not every physical contact or verbal expression implies sexual harassment. The key ingredient is “sexual intent.” In the present case:

• The act was a one-time incident.
• There was no request for sexual favour.
• No sexually coloured remarks were made other than “I love you.”
• There was no follow-up conduct indicating sexual pursuit or harassment.

Thus, the Court held that the words “I love you”, even when accompanied by hand-holding, do not automatically signify sexual intent unless the surrounding circumstances or subsequent conduct indicate otherwise

2. Interpretation of “Sexual Intent” under POCSO

The POCSO Act aims to protect children from sexual offences and defines “sexual assault” under Section 7 as any act involving physical contact with “sexual intent” but without penetration.

The Court stated that the words “I love you” alone would not amount to ‘sexual intent’ as contemplated by the legislature, and that there must be something more to indicate that the actual intention was to introduce a sexual element into the situation.

It further emphasised that “sexual intent” is a question of fact, requiring examination of surrounding circumstances, body language, tone, and pattern of behaviour. In this case:

• There was no touching of private parts.
• There was no inappropriate or indecent gesture.
• The conduct lacked repetition or persistence.

Hence, no offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act was made out

3. Stalking under Section 354-D IPC

Section 354-D defines stalking as:

• Following a woman repeatedly, or
• Attempting to contact her to foster personal interaction despite a clear indication of disinterest.

In the present case, the Court observed that the accused had only a single interaction with the victim. There was no evidence suggesting any prior or subsequent attempts by the accused to engage with her. The prosecution failed to demonstrate any pattern of behaviour, such as repeated following, messaging, or any form of persistent contact that could amount to stalking or harassment.

Therefore, the stalking charge also failed on legal grounds

4. Definition of “Modesty” and Its Relevance

The IPC does not define “modesty,” but it is understood to mean a woman’s sense of personal dignity and decency. Courts have previously held that any act that violates this sense—whether through physical gestures or indecent remarks—can amount to an offence under Section 354 IPC.

However, the High Court observed that merely holding someone’s hand and expressing love, without more, cannot be automatically assumed to outrage modesty, especially when the gesture is not accompanied by sexual connotations or suggestive language.

5. Role of Dictionary Definitions and Precedents

To understand the term “sexual intent”, the Court referenced:

Webster’s Dictionary:

Sexual: Related to or involving sex or sexual attraction

Intent: Purpose or design, particularly to commit an act

Bandu Vitthalrao Borwar v. State of Maharashtra (2016): Sexual intent must reflect the purpose of sexual gratification or offensive desire, not merely affection or admiration.

The Court stressed that romantic feelings—even when inappropriately expressed—are not synonymous with sexual aggression, and the law cannot conflate the two without undermining the objective of protecting actual victims of sexual misconduct

Outcome

The High Court ultimately:

• Allowed the appeal.
• Quashed the conviction and acquitted the accused.
• Ordered his immediate release from custody.

Declared that no offence under Section 354-A, 354-D IPC or Section 8 of POCSO Act was made out.

Key Highlights of the Decision

Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke stated: 

Thus, the state of mind, must be to establish some sort of physical contact or must be related to or associated with sex or indicative of involvement of sex in the relationship, if it is to be considered as sexual. 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.

On considering the evidence of the prosecution, in order to ascertain the state of mind of the accused, there is not a single circumstance indicating that the accused’s real intention was to establish sexual contact with the victim. There is no evidence on record showing that there was any gesture in the nature of “eye expression” or body language of the accused.

Why This Judgment Matters

1. Affirms the Centrality of Intent in Criminal Law

The judgment reiterates a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence: Mens rea (intention) is as essential as the act itself. A mere confession of love does not establish the requisite intent to outrage modesty or cause sexual harm.

2. Prevents Overcriminalisation

In an age of heightened awareness about gender sensitivity and child protection, this ruling ensures that casual or socially inept behaviour is not equated with criminality without a clear sexual dimension.

3. Clarifies the Scope of POCSO

The Court avoided an overly broad interpretation of POCSO that could criminalise non-sexual, immature interactions, particularly among youth. The law must be applied sensitively but proportionately.

Conclusion