Rajasthan HC Retains Sexual Harassment Charge Against Man For Showing Adult Videos To Child, Says Intent To Be Assumed When Harassment Is Proved

Rajasthan High Court ruled that comprehensive reading of Sections 11 and 30 of POCSO Act reflected that in prosecution for sexual harassment, the Special Court was mandated to presume existence of the sexual intent once the prosecution had proved commission of the act constituting sexual harassment.

These observations were given by Justice Manoj Kumar Garg while hearing a revision petition filed for charges framed against the petitioners under POCSO Act, wherein it was argued on behalf of the petitioner's counsel that the act of showing adult videos to a child did not, in isolation, constituted a criminal offence unless it was proven to be accompanied with coercion, exploitation or other unlawful acts.

Complaint was filed by the victim's father regarding his daughter's abduction from home post which charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for stalking under IPC as well as sexual harassment under POCSO.

During her statements before the Court, the victim averred that she had voluntarily left her home and roamed alone for about two months without the petitioner. During this time, no wrongdoing was committed against her by anyone. Her sole allegation pertained to the petitioner showing her adult videos.

In this background, the counsel for the petitioner argued that no offence, as framed by the trial court was made out against the petitioner. And the act of showing adult videos, did not constitute criminal offence in isolation.

After hearing the contentions, the Court firstly dropped the charges of stalking against the petitioner in light of there being no credible evidence supporting the occurrence of the same.

In relation to the offence under Section 11(iii) of the POCSO Act that pertained to sexual harassment by showing any object to a child for pornographic purposes, the Court opined that,

“A comprehensive reading of Sections 11 and 30 of the POCSO Act reveals that in prosecutions for sexual harassment, where the establishment of sexual intent is an essential element, the Special Court is mandated to presume the existence of such intent once the prosecution has proved the commission of the act constituting sexual harassment, excluding the element of sexual intent…the burden then shifts to the accused to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the absence of sexual intent with respect to the alleged act.”

The Court further referred to Section 354A(iii), IPC that talks about sexual harassment by showing pornography against the will of a woman, and held that the provision aligned with the nature of the alleged act, and provided clear statutory basis for prosecuting such conduct.

In this light, the revision petition was allowed partially wherein the charges of stalking under IPC as well as POCSO was set aside, whereas the charge of showing adult videos, under Section 11(iii), POCSO was retained.

Further, charge under Section 354A(iii), IPC, was added.

Title: Khyali Ram v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 175

Click Here To Read/Download Order