Granting anticipatory bail to a 27-year-old man from Baramati in Pune district, who was booked for holding the hand of a 17-year-old and “expressing love” towards her, the Bombay High Court recently held that merely holding or touching hand to express love towards a minor without sexual intent does not amount to offence of sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
A single-judge bench of Justice Bharati H Dangre on December 22 passed an order on the pre-arrest bail plea by the 27-year-old man, who was booked by Baramati City Police earlier this year for punishable offences under Sections 354 (criminal force committed on a woman to outrage her modesty) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 (sexual assault of minor) of the POCSO Act, among others.
According to the complaint filed by the minor, she was a student and the accused was her neighbour. One day while she was going to her tuition classes, the accused restrained her and “expressed his love” towards her. When she ignored him, he held her right hand and expressed his feelings, the complaint said. The complaint said the minor was scared and left the spot. Later, she was warned against reporting the incident to anyone, she said.
The man then allegedly forwarded messages from different SIM numbers to her mobile phone. The man allegedly told her that he had opened an Instagram account to “malign her image” in her friend circle. After being threatened for nearly eight months, the complaint said, the minor approached the police and lodged the complaint.
Also read: 6-year-old kidnapped Child recovered after 36 hours extensive search
The court held that there was no evidence to show that the accused had any
sexual intention. It also observed that there was no evidence that he had
persistently followed the minor or accosted her in an isolated place. It said
there was no cogent evidence to establish that the accused used criminal force
with intention to outrage the modesty of the minor.
“Considering the evidence on record, I find that the prosecution has not been
able to bring evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has
committed acts as alleged. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt
and subsequently for his acquittal,” it said.