Lexpedia — Digital Smart Study
Latest JudgementIndian Penal Code, 1860Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012SC & ST Act, 1989

State of Chhattisgarh v. Rupendra Das Manikpuri, 2025

The act of shouting “I love you” without sexual intent does not amount to sexual harassment or assault under the POCSO Act.

High Court of Chhattisgarh·25 July 2025
State of Chhattisgarh v. Rupendra Das Manikpuri, 2025
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

High Court of Chhattisgarh

Date of Decision

25 July 2025

Judges

Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 7, Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) Section 354-D, Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 509, IPC Section 3(2)(va), SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Facts of the Case

  • On October 14, 2019, a 15-year-old schoolgirl was returning home with friends when the respondent/accused allegedly shouted “I love you” to her.

  • The girl alleged that the accused had previously harassed her, leading to reprimands from school teachers.

  • An FIR was registered under various sections of IPC, POCSO Act, and the SC/ST Act based on the complaint.

  • After trial before the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Dhamtari, the respondent was acquitted.

  • The State challenged the acquittal before the High Court under Section 378 of CrPC.

Issues

  1. Whether shouting “I love you” to a minor constitutes “sexual assault” under Section 7 of the POCSO Act?

  2. Whether sexual intent, in the absence of physical contact, is sufficient to attract Section 7 of the POCSO Act?

  3. Whether the evidence justified conviction under Sections 354-D (stalking) and 509 IPC (insult to modesty)?

  4. Whether there was intent under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act?

Judgement

  • The Court upheld the acquittal, observing that:

    • The sole expression “I love you”, though directed at a minor girl, was not made with sexual intent.

    • It was a “solitary act”, and not accompanied by physical contact or any sexually suggestive behavior.

    • The testimonies of the victim and her friends corroborated that there was no act involving sexual desire or physical advances.

  • The Court emphasized that “sexual intent” is the crucial element, not physical contact. Relying on Attorney General for India v. Satish, the Court clarified that expression without intent does not constitute sexual assault.

  • Section 354-D IPC will Not attracted as no repeated or continued following or contact was established. The girl had not expressed disinterest in a way that would invoke criminality.

  • The Court found no filthy or obscene language or attempt to insult her modesty.

  • The prosecution failed to show that the accused had knowledge that the girl belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

 

Held

  • The appeal filed by the State was dismissed.

  • The order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Dhamtari was affirmed.

  • The act of shouting “I love you” without sexual intent does not amount to sexual harassment or assault under the POCSO Act.

Analysis

  • The Court took a nuanced view by distinguishing between romantic expression and sexual harassment.

  • It correctly applied the requirement of “mens rea” (mental intent) under criminal law, especially “sexual intent” under Section 7 of POCSO.

  • The decision reflects judicial restraint in not criminalizing immature or isolated behavior, especially in cases involving youth interactions, unless clear sexual or criminal intent is established.

  • The judgment helps reaffirm that criminal law should not be stretched to cover every socially inappropriate act, unless legally punishable elements exist.

  • Importantly, it aligns with the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence and prevents misuse of POCSO provisions.

ChildrenConsentSexual AssaultSexual CrimeWomen