Introduction:

In State of Chhattisgarh v. Rupendra Das Manikpuri (ACQA No. 215 of 2022), the Chhattisgarh High Court, presided over by Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, overturned an appeal by the State challenging the acquittal of Mr. Manikpuri for allegedly shouting “I love you” at a 15‑year‑old girl. The appellant contended this constituted sexual harassment, stalking, and insult to modesty under IPC and POCSO. After evaluating the evidence and legal principles, including the Supreme Court’s binding authority in Attorney General for India v. Satish (2021), the High Court held that this expression, in isolation and without sexual context, does not amount to an offense under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. The Court also found no ground for sections 354‑D (stalking), 509 (insulting modesty), or SC/ST atrocity provisions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the accused’s acquittal affirmed.

Arguments by the Prosecution (State):

The State contended that:

The accused shouted “I love you” to a minor, satisfying the definition of sexual harassment under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, and possibly qualifying as sexual assault under Section 7 due to intent inferred from the phrase.

• He habitually harassed the girl, amounting to stalking under Section 354‑D IPC.
• The language used, said in public and causing embarrassment, constituted insult to modesty under Section 509 IPC.
• Given the victim’s SC/ST status, the accused’s actions fell within Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The prosecution argued that the “I love you” shout—especially from a stranger—inevitably carried sexual connotation, constituting harassment and emotional distress harmful to a minor’s psyche. It further asserted that such conduct warranted penal consequences to deter predatory behavior.

Arguments by the Defence (Accused):

Counsel Shobhit Koshta argued that:

The accused merely said “I love you” without any attempt at physical contact, and mere expression—even if unwelcome—does not constitute sexual assault under Section 7 of POCSO, which mandates sexual intent.

• Referencing Attorney General for India v. Satish (2021), the Court emphasized that sexual assault under POCSO focuses on intent, not just words or contact.
• There was no evidence of stalking—no pattern of behavior or pursuit—and no objective proof the victim indicated disinterest or distress.
• No lewd or abusive words were used; the language was neither filthy nor insulting to modesty.
• The absence of any communal motive or caste-based insult nullified applicability of the SC/ST Act provision.

Court’s Analysis and Judgment:

The High Court undertook a structured analysis:

• Minority: The Court confirmed the girl’s minority via a birth certificate, uncontested.
• Sexual intent element under Section 7 POCSO: Citing Satish (LL 2021 SC 656), the Court reiterated that sexual intent is the sine qua non for sexual harassment or assault. In Satish, the Supreme Court clarified that touching without intent fails to satisfy POCSO standards. Just as physical contact without sexual intent is insufficient, so too verbal expressions without intent are inadequate. Hence, the Court held that a solitary “I love you”—absent context of sexual desire—cannot be an offense under Section 7 or Section 8.
• Stalking under Section 354‑D IPC: The Court noted that stalking requires repeated conduct, pursuit, or surveillance. No such pattern was established—only a one-time incident—which could not meet the threshold.
• Insult to modesty under Section 509 IPC: This provision demands insulting, obscene, or derogatory remarks made in the victim’s presence. The Court found no use of filthy or insulting language nor intent to humiliate the girl. A mere shout of love did not demean or degrade her modesty.
• SC/ST Act: The Court held that without targeting caste identity or using racially/ethnically motivated slurs, Section 3(2)(va) was inapplicable.

Taking these factors holistically, Justice Agrawal concluded that the prosecution failed to prove any of the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal lacked merit, and the authorship of the lone expression did not translate into sexual assault, harassment, stalking, or atrocity. Thus, the acquittal was upheld.