An offence of sexual harassment under the POCSO Act requires specific proof of 'sexual intent.' Mere acts of stalking or following a child, absent evidence suggesting a motive for sexual contact or overtures, are insufficient to invoke statutory presumptions or sustain a conviction.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 11(iv), 12 and 30 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 354-D, 509, 504 and 506 - Sexual harassment - Ingredients of offence - Proof of sexual intent - Essential requirement. (Paras 13, 20, 21)

(B) Evidence - Statutory presumption - Section 30 of POCSO Act - Applicability contingent upon establishing foundational facts - Unless evidence is brought to substantiate sexual intent, mere act of following or approaching a child does not fulfill legal threshold of sexual harassment. (Paras 21, 25)

Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused persistently stalked a minor student for several months and made inappropriate gestures at an educational institution, leading to charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and the Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted the accused for sexual harassment under the POCSO Act, while acquitting him of other charges. The accused challenged this conviction on the grounds that the prosecution failed to demonstrate any sexual intent required by the statute.

Findings of Court:
The court held that intent is an inner state of mind that must be inferred from the surrounding facts and circumstances. The evidence presented was insufficient to suggest that the actions were driven by a desire for sexual contact or physical proximity. Consequently, the conviction under the POCSO Act was found to be unsustainable as the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredient of sexual intent.

Issues: The main issues were whether the evidence sufficiently established 'sexual intent' for the offence of sexual harassment and whether the statutory presumption regarding such intent could be invoked without foundational evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Sexual intent must be manifested through evidence indicative of an inclination toward physical contact or sexual overtures. Statutory presumptions under the relevant Act cannot be triggered until the prosecution has established the fundamental facts that show a clear sexual motivation, which, in this instance, were absent.

Result: Appeal allowed and conviction set aside.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Phatke for the appellant, Ms. Deshmukh, learned APP for the State and Dr. Pedgaonkar, Advocate appointed for respondent No. 2 who has assisted Mr. Adhav learned Advocate.

2. A challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 20-09-2025 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar in Special Case No. 236/2023 by which, the appellant was convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 11 (iv) read with section 12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Assault, 2012 [for short ‘the Act of 2012’] and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-. In default he was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. By the said judgment the accused was acquitted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 354-D , 509, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code [for short ‘the IPC’] so also, sections 11 (I) read with section 12 of the Act of 2012.

3. In nutshell, it is the case of the prosecution that a victim who is 15 years old and was studying in 9th Std used to attend her school. Since 3 to 4 months prior to the registration of the First Information Report the appellant/accused used to follow her. This fact was disclosed by her to her father. The father of the victim accordingly gave understanding to the appellant.

4. It was the case of prosecution that on 17-06-2023 at about 09.30 am the accused went to the victim’s school, at which time the victim was in a class room and made some gesture. As the complaint was made by the victim to a teacher pointing out the aforesaid incident, the teacher asked the appellant to remove himself from the school. Said fact of giving understanding was also narrated by the victim to her parents. This time, the father of the victim went at village Bhanashivra where the accused was residing and tried to give understanding to him, but the accused threatened him.

5. The said act resulted into setting a criminal law in motion by way of registration of First Information Report as Crime No. 669/2023 dated 17-06-2023 with Newasa Police Station for the commission of offence punishable under Section 354-D , 509, 504, 506 of the IPC and section section 12 of the Act of 2012. The investigation was carried out and after culmination of same a final report was submitted.

6. The learned Trial court on 22-02-2024 framed the charge against the appellant below Exh.18 for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 354-D of the IPC and Section 11 (iv) punishable under Section 12 of the Act of 2012. The appellant was also charged for the commission of offences punishable under Section 509 of the IPC read with section 11 (i) of the Act of 2012. Further charged under Section 504 of the IPC, so also the charge under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC was framed. As the accused did not plead guilty, the prosecution examined total six witnesses in order to bring home the charge.

7. PW-1 is the victim of the crime. PW-2 is the father of the victim. PW-3- Swapnil Gaikwad is the teacher where the victim was taking education. PW-4- Bhima Gaikwad is a panch witness. PW-5 Kavita Aher is a Gramsevak who has produced the birth certificate of the victim. PW-6 Shailendra Sasane was the Police Inspector. After recording of evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A defense of the accused was of false implication and total denial. The accused neither entered into the witness box nor examined any other witness.

8. In the aforesaid background the learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant could not have been convicted for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 11 (iv) of the Act of 2012. According to him, entire story advanced by the prosecution was not at all convincing and the ingredients of the offenes were not proved. He submits that in fact the prosecution case rests on t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document