Whistling At Child, Pulling Her Hand May Be Harassment, Not Sexual Assault: Madras High Court

“From the statements of witnesses and materials available on record, it is seen that the petitioner pulled the victim by his hand, when the victim failed to respond to his whistle. Such act cannot be straightaway termed as sexual intent and at most, it can be termed as harassment and not an act of sexual assault. Hence, the judgment needs to be re-considered,” Justice Nirmal Kumar said.

The court was hearing an application filed by an accused seeking to suspend the sentence imposed on him by the POCSO Court in Chennai for an offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs 1000.

The prosecution case against the petitioner was that on March 1, 2020, when the victim was passing through the common gate of the compound, the petitioner whistled at the victim girl, who was a minor at that time. When the victim did not respond to him, he came down and pulled the victim's hand and smiled at her. Arguing that the act was with a sexual intent, the case was registered.

The petitioner argued that he and the victim were residing in the same compound. He submitted that there was a fight between him and the victim's father and an exchange of blows. He argued that a false case was registered against him by taking advantage of the victim's minor age.

The petitioner argued that even as per the prosecution's case, he had only pulled the victim's hand by force and did nothing else. He submitted that even if the facts were admitted, it would at most be an offence under Section 11 of the POCSO Act for harassment. He thus argued that the presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act would not apply in the present case, and thus the judgment of the trial court was erroneous.

The petitioner submitted that due to non-filing of the suspension of sentence petition, he was remanded at the time of pronouncement of the order.

The court noted that the petitioner was accused of whistling at the victim and pulling her hand. The court noted that the act of the petitioner could not be termed as sexual assault, but would only constitute harassment.

Considering that there were arguable points in the appeal, which could take time, the court was inclined to suspend the sentence. Thus, the court suspended the sentence of imprisonment and enlarged the petitioner on bail on the condition of executing a bond of Rs 5,000 with two sureties. The court also directed the petitioner to appear before the trial court once in three months on the first working day.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr K Sudhakar

Counsel for Respondent: Mr Sharada Vivek Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl Side)

Case Title: Mandai @ Manogaran v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 361

Case No: Crl MP No. 11962 of 2026