Justice S Karthikeyan noted that the act attributed to the man was that he had shown his male organ to the child. The court remarked that such an act would not constitute sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO Act but would fall under sexual harassment under Section 11 of the Act.

“It is true that the evidence of the victim did not disclose that there is a physical contact between the victim and the appellant. Even as per the victim, the only overt act alleged as against the appellant is that he shown his male organ to him. Though the said act would not attract the offence punishable under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, it would fall under Section 11(i) of the POCSO Act,” the court observed.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by the man challenging his conviction and sentence for offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The Special Judge had sentenced the man to 3 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 5,000.

As per the prosecution's case, the man was doing plumbing work on the terrace of a house when the victim boy, who was 11 years old at the time of occurrence, had come there to play. It was alleged that the man, under the pretext of playing with the minor boy, had carried him to a small room upstairs, removed his dress and asked the victim to kiss his male organ. The accused was thus charged under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Act.

The man argued that to attract the offence under Section 7 of the Act, there must be physical contact between the accused and the victim, which was absent in the present case.

The court noted that as per the evidence of the victim boy, he had gone to the terrace to play where the man was doing plumbing work. At the time, the man had taken the boy to a small room nearby and showed his male organ to the boy. The boy pushed the man, came out and reported the incident to his mother. The mother then informed the father, who reported it to the Childline.

The court thus noted that the man could not be accused under Section 7, but was instead guilty for offence of sexual harassment under Section 11, punishable under Section 12 of the Act. The court also noted that the man was a plumber and a first time offender, and was thus inclined to impose a lenient sentence on him.

Thus, the court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the man under Section 7 of the Act and instead convicted him under Section 11 of the Act. The court also sentenced him to 1 year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000.

The court also directed the man to surrender before the trial court within a period of 1 week and added that he was entitled to set off the period of imprisonment already undergone.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. G. Bhagavath Singh

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. A. Robinson Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

Case Title: Kannan v State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 436

Case No: Crl A (MD) No 523 of 2019