The Madras High Court has suspended the sentence of a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act after observing that the allegations against him raise arguable legal questions regarding whether the act complained of could automatically be treated as a sexual assault. Justice M. Nirmal Kumar granted the relief while hearing an application for suspension of sentence pending disposal of the criminal appeal.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident allegedly occurring on 1 March 2020 in Chennai. According to the prosecution, the minor girl had gone to collect food from her aunt's house when the accused, Mandai @ Manogaran, allegedly whistled at her from a balcony. It was further alleged that when she ignored him, he came downstairs, pulled her hand and smiled at her with sexual intent. Based on the complaint lodged by the girl's mother, a criminal case was registered, investigated and taken to trial.
The Special Court for Exclusive Trial of POCSO Cases, Chennai, convicted the accused under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1,000. The present petition sought suspension of that sentence during the pendency of the appeal.
Petitioner's Stand
Before the High Court, counsel for the appellant argued that the accused and the victim's family lived in the same residential compound and that there had been an earlier dispute between the accused and the victim's father. It was contended that the allegations had been exaggerated following that dispute.
The defence also submitted that even accepting the prosecution version at face value, the allegation was limited to the accused pulling the victim's hand and nothing beyond that. It was argued that such conduct, if proved, would at best attract provisions relating to sexual harassment under the POCSO Act and not sexual assault under Section 8.
The appellant further informed the Court that although the sentence imposed was only three years, no application for suspension of sentence had been filed before the trial court immediately after conviction because of counsel's absence, resulting in his continued imprisonment.
State's Response
The State opposed the plea, submitting that the victim had consistently narrated the incident during the investigation, in her statement under Section 164 CrPC, and during trial. According to the prosecution, these statements clearly supported the allegation that the accused had pulled the victim's hand with sexual intent. The State therefore argued that the trial court had rightly convicted the accused after appreciating the evidence.
Court's Observation
After examining the materials on record, Justice M. Nirmal Kumar noted that the victim herself was the only eyewitness to the alleged occurrence. The Court observed that the allegation essentially involved the accused allegedly whistling at the victim, calling her, and then pulling her hand when she did not respond.
The Court remarked:
"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."
The Court further observed that these aspects required reconsideration during the hearing of the criminal appeal, indicating that the appeal involved arguable legal issues deserving detailed examination.
Court's Decision
Considering that the appeal raised arguable points and that its final hearing would take time, the High Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed on the appellant pending disposal of the appeal.
The Court directed that the appellant be released on bail upon executing a bond of ₹5,000 with two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court. It also directed him to appear before the trial court once every three months on the first working day at 10:30 a.m.
until the criminal appeal is finally decided.
Case Details
Case Title: Mandai @ Manogaran v. The State
Case Number: CRL MP No. 11962 of 2026 in CRL A No. 830 of 2026
Judge: Justice M. Nirmal Kumar
Decision Date: 10 July 2026
