File photo: Madras High Court, Chennai
Photo: Yoga Balaji
Source: Wikimedia Commons
Licence: CC BY 3.0
Judgment Intelligence
OtherKannan v. State through the Inspector of Police
Crl.A.(MD) No. 523 of 2019
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of Decision
- 2 September 2026
- Bench
- Justice S. Karthikeyan (Madurai Bench)
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Sections 7, 8, 11(i), 12; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 374(2), 428
Final Outcome
Appeal partly allowed: conviction under Section 7 read with Section 8 set aside; conviction under Section 11 read with Section 12, one year's rigorous imprisonment and ₹5,000 fine; bail bond cancelled, surrender within a week, set-off under Section 428 CrPC (paras 15-16).
Source Madras High Court, decided 02.09.2026
Key holdings
- Section 7 of the POCSO Act was not attracted where the evidence disclosed no physical contact (para 11).
- Exhibiting a part of the body with sexual intent so that a child sees it is sexual harassment under Section 11(i) (para 12).
- The conviction was altered to Section 11 read with Section 12 (paras 12, 16).
- Being a first-time offender, the appellant received one year of rigorous imprisonment instead of three (paras 14-15).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
The prosecution case was that on 02.08.2016 the appellant, a plumber working on the terrace of the house where the boy's family were tenants, took the child to a small room, removed his clothes and asked the boy to kiss his private part (para 8). The Special Court convicted him under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000 (paras 3, 5). In appeal he argued that the boy's evidence disclosed no physical contact (para 10).
Court's Findings
The Court accepted that the victim's evidence did not disclose any physical contact between the appellant and the boy; on his own account, the only overt act was that the appellant showed him his private part (paras 9, 11). That act would not attract Section 7 of the POCSO Act, but it fell within Section 11(i), under which a person commits sexual harassment of a child when, with sexual intent, he exhibits any part of his body intending that it be seen by the child (paras 11-12). The conviction under Section 7 read with Section 8 was therefore set aside and the appellant was convicted under Section 11 read with Section 12 (para 12). Considering that he was a plumber and a first-time offender, the Court imposed a lenient sentence (paras 13-14).
Legal Principle
Without physical contact, an act of a person exposing himself to a child does not amount to sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, but, done with sexual intent so that the child sees it, it is sexual harassment under Section 11(i), punishable under Section 12 (paras 11-12).