Granting anticipatorybail to a 27-year-old man from Baramati in Pune district, who was booked forholding the hand of a 17-year-old and “expressing love” towards her, the BombayHigh Court recently held that merely holding or touching hand to express lovetowards a minor without sexual intent does not amount to offence of sexualassault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
A single-judge benchof Justice Bharati H Dangre on December 22 passed an order on the pre-arrestbail plea by the 27-year-old man, who was booked by Baramati City Policeearlier this year for punishable offences under Sections 354 (criminal forcecommitted on a woman to outrage her modesty) and 506 (criminal intimidation) ofthe Indian Penal Code and Section 7 (sexual assault of minor) of the POCSO Act,among others.
According to thecomplaint filed by the minor, she was a student and the accused was herneighbour. One day while she was going to her tuition classes, the accused restrainedher and “expressed his love” towards her. When she ignored him, he held herright hand and expressed his feelings, the complaint said. The complaint saidthe minor was scared and left the spot. Later, she was warned against reportingthe incident to anyone, she said.
The man thenallegedly forwarded messages from different SIM numbers to her mobile phone.The man allegedly told her that he had opened an Instagram account to “malignher image” in her friend circle. After being threatened for nearly eightmonths, the complaint said, the minor approached the police and lodged thecomplaint.
The court held that there was no evidence to show that the accused had anysexual intention. It also observed that there was no evidence that he hadpersistently followed the minor or accosted her in an isolated place. It saidthere was no cogent evidence to establish that the accused used criminal forcewith intention to outrage the modesty of the minor.
“Considering the evidence on record, I find that the prosecution has not beenable to bring evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused hascommitted acts as alleged. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubtand subsequently for his acquittal,” it said.