THANE: A Thane court has acquitted a man accused of stalking and sexually harassing a minor girl, observing that his actions did not demonstrate "sexual intent", a key element required under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The accused, Mayuresh Kailas Shelke (25), a labourer, allegedly entered the 15-year-old victim's home in Maharashtra's Thane city in 2019 and professed his love.
Judge Ruby U Malvankar observed that there was no physical contact with the victim, and the words used by the accused per se in the light of the facts of this case would not amount to an "intent" showing some sort of his "sexual intention".
"What constitutes such sexuality or sexual intent and what is not is a question of fact, and in the case in hand, there does not appear any such sexual intent from the words used by the accused," she noted.
A copy of the order passed on December 22, 2025, was made available on Tuesday.
The case stemmed from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged in 2019 by the victim, who alleged that Shelke, her neighbour, entered her home in a chawl (row tenement) at Mhatre Nagar in Dombivli on November 1, 2019, while she was studying alone.
As per the prosecution, the accused told the victim, "Do not address me as 'Dada', I love you", and had been stalking her and making repeated phone calls.
The prosecution charged Shelke under Sections 354D (stalking) and 441 (criminal trespass) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7 (sexual assault) and 11 (sexual harassment) of the POCSO Act.
Defence counsel Amresh S Jadhav, however, challenged the prosecution's case.
The court pointed out that the incident allegedly occurred in a densely populated chawl, yet "no other evidence of any other independent witness who could have testified about having seen such an act" was produced.
It emphasised that determining "what constitutes such sexuality or sexual intent and what is not is a question of fact," and concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the legal ingredients of the offences charged.
The court, while acknowledging the victim was a minor at the time, held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction.