The Madras High Court (HC) recently delivered a verdict, shedding light on the wider implications for the interpretation of offences under the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The HC observed that merely whistling at a minor girl and catching hold of her does not, by itself, amount to sexual intent required to constitute the office of sexual assault.

The court delivered the ruling while hearing an appeal in Mandai vs State, where Justice M Nirmal Kumar of the Madras HC suspended the 3-year jail term awarded to the appellant by a Special POCSO Court.

The HC bench noted that the conviction warranted a fresh judicial examination, adding that while the conduct alleged against the accused could amount to harassment, it could not automatically be categorised as sexual assault in the absence of clear evidence demonstrating sexual intent.

Bench draws distinction between harassment, sexual assault

The HC, while considering the appeal, observed that the acts attributed to the accused; whistling at the minor girl, calling out to her and holding her hand thereafter after she ignored him, did not conclusively establish sexual intent under the POCSO Act.

The bench remarked, “Such acts 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.”

Details of the case

The case being heard at the HC dates back to March 2020, as per prosecution. The accused, Mandai aka Manoragan, who resided in the same residential complex as the survivor, allegedly whistled at the former from his balcony while she was heading towards her aunt’s house to fetch food.

When the girl allegedly ignored him and continued walking, the accused reportedly came downstairs, clasped her hand and smiled at her in a manner that the prosecution described as sexually motivated. The girl, however, managed to break free and later informed her mother about the incident.

The following day, the girl’s kin lodged a police complaint, and the accused was arrested. He was subsequently produced before a Special POCSO Court, which convicted him in June 2026, sentencing him to 3 years of rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs 1,000.

Defence challenges applicability of POCSO provision

The appellant, challenging the conviction before the HC, contended through his counsel that the criminal case had arisen out of a personal dispute between him and the survivor’s father.

The defence then argued that the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, did not satisfy the ingredients of sexual assault punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Instead, the conduct, at its highest, could fall within the ambit of sexual harassment under Section 11 of the Act.

However, the prosecution hit back, maintaining that the survivor had consistently narrated the sequence of events in her statements as well as during her testimony before the trial court. However, the State too, acknowledged that sentences of this nature are ordinarily suspended during the pendency of an appeal and noted that no such application had been moved before the trial court, resulting in the appellant remaining incarcerated.