Details of the Case
- Case Title: Ravindra s/o Laxman Narete vs. State of Maharashtra
- Court: Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 471 of 2017
- Presiding Judge: Justice Urmila Joshi‑Phalke
- Judgment Date: Delivered on June 30 or July 1, 2025
Background of the Case
In a case that has generated debate around the limits of sexual harassment laws, the Bombay High Court has acquitted a 25-year-old man, who had inexplicably been found guilty of inappropriate behaviour under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The events took place in October 2015, when the man allegedly intercepted a 17-year-old girl walking home from school in Nagpur, grasped her hand, and said "I love you".
After the girl made a complaint about the incident, the man was arrested and charged with Section 354-A (sexual harassment), and Section 354-D (stalking) of the IPC, and, in relation to the sexual assault of a minor, Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The Sessions Court in Nagpur convicted him in 2017, and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment.
But in July 2025, the Bombay High Court quashed the conviction on the basis that while the action may have offended or annoyed the complainant, it did not constitute sexual harassment, or molestation under law in the absence of sexual intent.
What Happened: The Allegations and the Trial
The prosecution submitted that the illicit love of the accused unfolded close to the girl’s school. While the complainant was leaving the school to go home, the accused stopped her, held her hand, and said that he loved her. The complainant’s cousin, who was also walking with the complainant, was a witness to the incident. The girl reported, which ended up in the police registering a case, charging the accused under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act (POCSO).
The prosecution claimed that since the accused was an adult, the accused's motive was romantic or predatory toward a Minor and as such, claimed to be covered under the ambit of POCSO and the IPC Sections associated with sexual harassment. The Sessions Court accepted the prosecution’s version and proceeded to convict the accused.
Legal Issues Involved
- Whether saying he loved a minor rises to the level of sexual harassment under Section 354A IPC or sexual mitigation under Section 8 POCSO.
- Whether he "had sexual intent" with the act of holding the girl’s hand with a romantic statement for purposes of conviction under POCSO.
- Whether mere verbal expression without concrete sexual conduct is criminalized under these provisions.
In such sensitive cases, consulting a skilled sexual harassment lawyer is crucial to understanding the legal nuances and building a strong defence or complaint.
The Judgment of the Bombay High Court
In the appeal undertaken by Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke of the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court, in favour of the accused, and set aside the conviction made by the lower court. The salient detainments made by the High Court, are as follows:
- The court found that the accused had said “I love you” and held the Girl’s hand however there was no evidence of sexual intent. Sexual intent is a necessary element of both IPC Section 354A and POCSO Section 8.
- The court decided that the act while inappropriate, was not sexual assault or sexual harassment because there were no lewd remarks, gestures designed to arouse or gratify sexual desire, or repetition of behaviours designed to humiliate the victim or cause fear or discomfort.
- The higher court decided that not every unwanted sign of affection or unwanted romantic expression is a crime unless it is clearly possessing a sexual undertone or there is an individual who persistently stalked the victim.
Therefore the man was acquitted and the court found that although his actions were questionable in propriety, it did not constitute a punishable act.
This ruling highlights why both victims and the accused must seek timely legal advice from a qualified sexual harassment advocate to ensure fair proceedings.
Critical Analysis
The trial verdict highlights one fundamental principle of sexual offence law: intention. Unfortunately, the criminal law does not punish every socially awkward interaction or behavior that most reasonable people deem morally unacceptable unless it crosses the threshold of criminality. The appellant’s behaviour in this case, although distasteful, did not exhibit any form of sexual advance or pattern of coercion.
However, this interpretation raises important points. In the context of Indian society and the power dynamics of sexual relationships, this could mean that even a one-off expression of romantic interest in a child can evoke emotional or psychological effects in that child. As such, the law must be careful to apply judgments on cases concerning minors that do not create a standard where offenders escape accountability only because they avoid engaging in inherently sexual behaviour.
Furthermore, the question of the recipient’s age should remain prominent. Under POCSO, consent of a child is irrelevant in law. While the court sought to emphasize the lack of sexual intent, the reality that the recipient of affection was a minor does obligate courts to assess such matters with more regard to the sensitivity of the minor as a party to the interaction, even if nothing more than holding hands occurred.
However, the decision also safeguards misuse of the law and confirms emotionally charged expressions made with no sexual intentions do not incur heavy sanctions under POCSO with its harsh repercussions. Striking a balance between protecting the minor and not thus criminalizing relatively innocent conduct was achieved with delicacy by the High Court.
The role of an experienced legal expert of sexual harassment cases becomes essential when laws like POCSO and IPC are interpreted subjectively based on ‘intent’.
Conclusion
This case represents a legal landmark in regulating the limits of sexual harassment laws in India. While protecting minors remains a task of the utmost concern, the judiciary has fully underscored the requirements for establishing sexual intent in order to be able to bring the full force of the criminal sanctions via POCSO. The High Court has importantly articulated that isolated romantic expressions in the absence of physical aggression or persistent unwanted stalking, might be judged as morally unquestionable but not necessarily receive criminal sanctions.
This judgment adds value to the importance of context as well as the subjective or objective standards that are entrenched in the law, when dealing with suspected wrongdoing with children. In this regard it would be beneficial for the law to adapt and develop through a considerate balance of maintaining a protective role while ensuring it retains fairness.
Legal complexities surrounding harassment laws require professional handling, a sexual harassment advocate ensures your rights are protected.
FAQs
1. What consequences can you face for sexually harassing someone according to POCSO or IPC?
You may be arrested and prosecuted under criminal law. If convicted, you could face an imprisonment sentence of 1 to 7 years or longer depending on the severity of the offense and or age of the victim.
2. What should you do if you have been sexually harassed at work?
You should complain to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). The ICC can refer under the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act to an inquiry and the Employment Agency can proceed with remedial action.
3. What is not sexual harassment in the workplace?
If two people consent to be involved with one another, this is not sexual harassment. If a person resorts to social criticism, this is not sexual harassment. Casual greetings such as 'hello' or 'goodbye' do not amount to harassment unless the greeting is made with suggestion or is unwelcome.
4. What is not sexual harassment in the law?
Touching someone once may not be considered sexual harassment if the person does not ask you not to touch them, and it does not become systematic or unduly repressive toward the subject. In cases where the subject is a minor, and there is no sexual implication or intent, a gesture of affection for another human being may not meet the legal test to be considered sexual harassment.
5. Can someone be punished in criminal law for making a romantic proposal to a minor?
Yes, if the proposed romantic relationship is sexual in nature and/or directed by coercion. However, as this case demonstrates, if "I love you" is communicated with no sexual behaviour associated with it, there may be no punishment unless sexual intent is established.
If you or someone you know is facing false accusations or genuine workplace harassment, it is important to speak with a sexual harassment lawyer without delay.
Share:
Share on
×