The Madras High Court, presided over by Justice M. Nirmal Kumar, suspended the three-year rigorous imprisonment sentence imposed on a man convicted under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, observing that pulling a minor girl’s hand after she failed to respond to a whistle cannot straightaway be classified as having sexual intent.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an incident on March 1, 2020, at around 8:00 p.m., when the minor victim was walking to her aunt’s house to collect food. The petitioner, Mandai @ Manogaran, who resided in the same compound, was standing on a balcony, whistled, and called her. When the victim did not respond, he came down, pulled her by the hand, and smiled at her.
Following the incident, the victim’s mother (PW1) filed a complaint on March 2, 2020, leading to the registration of Crime No. 03 of 2020 at the W-12 All Women Police Station, Harbour Range, Chennai. The petitioner was subsequently arrested and charge-sheeted.
During the trial before the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Under POCSO Act, Chennai (Special S.C. No. 115 of 2021), five witnesses (PW1 to PW5) were examined and Exhibits P1 to P9 were marked. PW2 (the victim) was the sole eyewitness to the occurrence, while PW3, an observation mahazar witness, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. On June 6, 2026, the trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,000, with a default sentence of three months simple imprisonment.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate K. Sudhakar submitted that a prior dispute and exchange of blows had occurred between the petitioner and the victim’s father, following which the parents projected a false case using the girl’s minority. He argued that on the admitted facts, an offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act was not made out, and at most, the act amounted to harassment under Section 11 of the POCSO Act. Consequently, the statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act did not apply.
Counsel further explained that the petitioner’s lawyer had failed to appear at the time of judgment delivery before the trial court and did not file a suspension of sentence application. As a result, the petitioner was remanded, despite sentences of three years or less routinely being suspended by trial courts. The petitioner had served 65 days as an undertrial and over 30 days in prison following the conviction.
Representing the State of Tamil Nadu, Advocate Sharada Vivek supported the trial court’s judgment, pointing out that the victim confirmed the petitioner’s actions in her police statement, her statement under Section 164 CrPC, and her court testimony. However, she acknowledged that sentences of three years or less are usually suspended by trial courts in normal course and that the reason for non-filing of the suspension petition was unknown.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
Upon reviewing the evidence, Justice M. Nirmal Kumar noted that the victim (PW2) was the sole witness to the occurrence and had confirmed that the petitioner pulled her hand by force and did nothing else.
Evaluating the nature of the act, the High Court observed:
“From the statements of witnesses and materials available on record, it is seen that the petitioner pulled the vetim 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.”
Finding that arguable points were raised in the appeal which would require time for final hearing, the High Court ordered the suspension of the execution of the substantive sentence of imprisonment pending disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 830 of 2026.
The Court ordered the petitioner to be enlarged on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 5,000 with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court. The petitioner has been directed to appear before the trial court on the first working day of every three months at 10:30 a.m. until the final disposal of the appeal.
Case Title: Mandai @ Manogaran v. The State rep by the Inspector of Police
Case No.: CRL MP No. 11962 of 2026 in Crl.A.No.830 of 2026
Bench: Justice M. Nirmal Kumar
Date: 10-07-2026
