Pulling Minor Girl By Hand When She Failed To Respond To Whistle Not Sexual Assault: Madras High Court Grants Bail In POCSO Case
The Madras High Court was considering a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 430(1) of the BNSS Act to suspend the execution of the sentence imposed on the accused.
While observing that the act of pulling a minor girl by hand when she failed to respond to the whistle of the accused cannot be straightaway termed as sexual assault but can be treated as harassment, the Madras High Court has granted bail to a man booked in a case registered under the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act.
The High Court was considering a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 430(1) of BNSS Act, to suspend the execution of sentence imposed on the petitioner/Appellant by the Sessions Judge and enlarge him on bail.
The Single Bench of Justice M. Nirmal Kumar held, “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.”
Advocate K.Sudhakar represented the Appellant while Counsel Sharada Vivek represented Government of Tamil Nadu.
Factual Background
The petitioner/accused was convicted by the Trial Court for offences under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2019 and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner and the victim were residing in the same compound. It was alleged that one day when the victim was passing through the gate, the petitioner standing in the balcony whistled and called her. When she did not respond the petitioner came down, pulled her hand and smiled at her. It was alleged that the petitioner pulled the victim with sexual intent. On the contrary, the petitioner claimed that there was a fight between the petitioner and the victim’s father and there was exchange of blows. Taking advantage of the minority of the girl, the victim’s parents projected a false case against him.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the victim was the only witness to the occurrence. The overt act attributed against him was that while standing on the balcony, he whistled and called the victim. Since the victim did not respond, the petitioner came down and pulled her by hand.
The Bench was of the view that the petitioner pulling the victim by hand, when the victim failed to respond to his whistle, cannot be straightaway termed as sexual intent.
Taking note of the fact that there were arguable points involved in the appeal and it would take some time for the appeal to be taken up for final hearing, the Bench suspended the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner till the disposal of the appeal.
The Bench further ordered the petitioner to be enlarged on bail, on condition that he executes a bond for a sum of Rs 5,000 with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cause Title: Mandai @ Manogaran v. The State (Case No.: CRL MP No. 11962 of 20)