Whistling, Pulling Minor Girl's Hand After She Ignores Is Harassment, Not Sexual Assault: Madras HC
Whistling, Pulling Minor Girl's Hand After She Ignores Is Harassment, Not Sexual Assault: Madras HC Published By, Last Updated: August 02, 2026, 13:16 IST Madras
Whistling, Pulling Minor Girl's Hand After She Ignores Is Harassment, Not Sexual Assault: Madras HC Published By, Last Updated: August 02, 2026, 13:16 IST Madras High Court observed that pulling a minor girl's hand after she ignored a whistle amounts to sexual harassment, not sexual assault, under the POCSO Act. The Madras High Court observed that pulling a minor girl's hand after she ignored a whistle constitutes sexual harassment and not sexual assault under the POCSO Act (AI-generated image/News18) The Madras High Court has observed that pulling a minor girl’s hand after she ignored a whistle, though unacceptable, would amount to sexual harassment and not sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, according to a report by Bar and Bench. The observation came while the High Court was hearing the appeal of a man convicted by a Special POCSO Court in Chennai for an incident that took place in March 2020. As per the report, the accused, identified as Mandai alias Manogaran, and the minor girl lived in the same residential compound.
The prosecution alleged that on March 1, 2020, the girl was on her way to her aunt’s house to collect food when the accused whistled and called out to her from a balcony. When the girl ignored him and continued walking, he allegedly came downstairs, pulled her by the hand and smiled at her “with sexual intent". The girl managed to free herself and later informed her mother, who lodged a police complaint the following day. A Special POCSO Court subsequently convicted the accused on June 6 and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment besides imposing a fine of Rs 1,000. However, while considering the appeal, the High Court examined whether the allegations made out the offence of sexual assault under the POCSO Act. The counsel for the accused argued that the minor, who was the sole eyewitness, had stated that the accused merely pulled her hand by force and did nothing beyond that. The defence also claimed that the complaint was false and stemmed from an earlier altercation between the accused and the girl’s father.
The defence further contended that even if the allegations were accepted as true, they would not attract punishment under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, which deals with sexual assault. Instead, the conduct, at best, would fall under Section 11, which defines sexual harassment. The State, on the other hand, argued that the girl’s version had remained consistent throughout the investigation. It submitted that she had repeated the same allegations in her police statement, her statement before a magistrate and later during her deposition before the trial court. Despite this, the High Court observed that the allegations did not satisfy the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence of sexual assault under the POCSO Act. The Court held that the act of pulling the minor’s hand after she ignored the accused’s whistle would amount to sexual harassment and not sexual assault. The State also informed the Court that a sentence of three years is ordinarily suspended by the trial court pending appeal. However, in this case, no application seeking suspension of sentence had been moved before the trial court, resulting in the accused remaining in prison.
The BriefWire