BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30/08/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.R.C.(MD).No.677 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 M.Nagarajan .. Petitioner Vs. State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Anna Nagar, Madurai. .. Respondent Prayer Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the Judgement passed in C.A.No.89 of 2008, dated 27.07.2009 by the Principal Sessions Judge of Madurai confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.244 of 2007 dated 16.07.2008 by the judicial Magistrate No.VI of Madurai and allow this criminal revision petition. !For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Ramasamy ^For Respondent ... Mr.P.Rajendran Govt. Advocate (crl.side) :ORDER
The above criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgement
of conviction and sentence passed in Criminal appeal No.89 of 2008 dated
27.07.2009 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, confirming the
judgement of the conviction and sentence passed for the alleged offence under
Section 4 of Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, dated 16.07.2008, by the
Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai to allow the criminal revision petition and
set aside the conviction and sentence of the courts below:
2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
(a) The P.W.1 Subarani lodged a complaint with the Sub Inspector of
Police, Annanagar, Madurai on 04.01.2007 at about 22.30 hrs, stating that she
was studying in the 1st year of the Law degree course. At about 8.45 p.m. she
and her 3 years old child who were returning after purchasing some household
articles and while she was nearing Mookabika Blood Lab, the accused came in
front of her and wilfully dashed against her and abused her in filthy language.
The said complaint was registered by the investigation officer in Crime No.15 of
2007, an alleged offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of women
harassment Act.
3. In the said criminal case 7 witnesses were examined, 4 documents were
marked.
4. The prosecution case runs as follows:
(a)The S.I. of Police, Anna Nagar, Madurai has filed a charge sheet
against the accused before the lower court stating that on 04.01.2007 at about
20.45 hours when the complainant Subha Rani was coming with her 3 year old child
along the southern street of Sri Moogambigai blood testing laboratory situated
at Anna Nagar 80 feet road, the accused who came from east to west dashed on her
and attempted to outrage her modesty and further abused her in filthy language
and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.4 of T.N. Prohibitaion of women
Harassment Act.
(b) The learned Judicial Magistrate No.6, Madurai took cognizance of the
offence and furnished copies of the case records to the accused u/s.207 Cr.P.C.
Since the learned Magistrate found prima facie case against the accused the
lower court framed a charge u/s.4 of prohibition of Women harassment Act against
the accused and when explained and questioned the accused pleaded not guilty.
(c) To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked
Exs.P.1 to P.4.
(d) When the accused was questioned with regard to the incriminating
circumstances in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses u/s.313 Cr.P.C. the
accused denied the same as false. No oral or documentary evidence was on the
side of the accused.
(e) On hearing both sides and on consideration of the evidence on record,
the trial court found the accused guilty u/s.4 of T.N. Prohibition of Women
Harassment Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine
of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo S.I. for one month.
(f) Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred
this appeal.
(g) The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the
conviction and sentence of the lower court are sustainable in law.
(h) Point: The charge against the accused is that on 04.01.2007 at about
20.45 hours at Anna Nagar 80 feet road near Moogambigai Laboratory when P.W.1
Subarani was walking on the road with her child, the accused came from east to
west and attempted to outrage the modesty of P.W.1 and also abused her in filthy
language and hence the accused is charged u/s.4 of T.N. prohibition of women
harassment Act.
(i) To prove this charge the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked
Exs.P.1 to P.4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.6, Madurai found the accused guilty u/s. 4 of T.N.
prohibition of women harassment Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 6
months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo S.I. for one month.
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal.
(j) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of P.W.1
is not corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses P.Ws.2 to 4, there
is contradiction between Ex.P.1 complaint and the evidence of P.W.1 and there is
no external injury also. P.W.1 was a law college student at the time of
occurrence. She has deposed that on 04.01.2007 at about 08.30 p.m. when she was
coming along Anna Nagar road near Moohambigai Blood testing laboratory with her
child, a man aged 30 years came in a cycle from the opposite direction and
dashed P.W.1 he also touched the chest of P.W.1, she raised an alarm as if the
accused committed a theft of her chain, immediately the public caught hold of
the accused and contacted emergency police phone 100, later she lodged complaint
at the Anna Nagar police and it is marked as Ex.P.1. In Ex.P.1, P.W.1 has stated
that on 04.01.2007 at about 8.45 p.m. when she was walking with her 3 year old
child near Moogambigai Blood testing laboratory the accused dashed on her and
abused her in filthy language, the public caught hold of her and brought her to
the police station. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted in Ex.P.1 P.W.1
has stated that the accused dashed on her and abused her in filthy language.
But during her evidence she has stated that the accused touched her chest after
dashing her. The learned counsel submitted that this is a material contradiction
affecting the prosecution. But P.W.1 was walking with her child on the road,
suddenly the accused appeared and dashed on her and touched her chest. The
first impression would be some body has snatched her chain only. She raised
alarm that the accused has committed theft of her chain. Immediately the accused
was caught hold of by the public. So the contradiction is natural and it is not
affecting the prosecution case.
(k) Now learned counsel for the appellant submitted, though P.W.1 has
deposed that the accused was caught hold of by the public and brought to the
police station, P.Ws.2 to 4 have not supported her evidence and they turned
hostile. But in the FIR itself it is stated that the accused was caught hold of
by the public immediately and he was brought to the police station. The fact
remains that the accused was caught hold of and brought to the police station by
the public. Though the prosecution examined P.Ws.2 to 4 to prove this fact,
unfortunately they turned hostile, P.W.1 is a lady. the accused an able bodied
man was brought to the police station. If P.Ws.2 to 4 had not brought him to
the police station, then who brought the accused to the police station? Hence,
it seems though P.Ws.2 to 4 have brought the accused to the police station now
they turned hostile. But the evidence of P.W.1 is trustworthy. She has no
enmity against the accused. The evidence of P.W.1 is spontaneous. So even a
solitary evidence of P.w.1, is sufficient to prove the offence against the
accused. The evidence of P.W.1 is strengthened by the arrest of the accused
immediately after the occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that there was some quarrel between the accused and P.W.1 but it was exaggerated
by P.W.1 and a false complaint was lodged. But before the court, P.W.1 has
categorically stated, the overt act of the accused. P.W.1 is a law college
student. So this court feels the evidence of P.W.1 is sufficient to establish
the guilt of the accused.
(l) P.Ws.5 and 6 have deposed about observation mahazar. P.W.7 has
deposed about the investigation. P.W.7 also admitted that on 04.01.2007 at
about 22.30 hours P.W.1 presented a complaint in the police station, a case in
Cr.No.15/07 u/s.509 IPC was registered. He examined the witnesses and recorded
their statements. P.Ws.2 to 4 were examined in the police station immediately
after the occurrence. Later they inspected the place of occurrence and prepared
observation mahazar. It is marked as Ex.P.2. The rough sketch is marked as
Exp.P.4. So considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 7 the prosecution has proved
that the accused has committed the offence u/s.4 of the prohibition of women
Harassment Act. The lower Court has also proceeded in the right path and came to
the correct conclusion. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding
of the lower court.
(m) As far as sentence is concerned the appellant was sentenced to undergo
R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. When a lady while walking on
the road the accused voluntarily dashed on her and outraged the modesty of the
lady. Considering the nature of offence, the sentence is also not excessive.
Hence the conviction and sentence of the lower court are confirmed. The point
is answered accordingly.
(n) The appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence passed
by judicial magistrate No.6 Madurai in C.C.No.244/07 dated 16.07.2008.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that there is no
corroborative evidence in this case. The evidence of the P.W.1 other
prosecution witnesses, their evidence is varied and not in one voice. The
prosecution witnesses 2, 3 and 4 are eye witnesses. Actually they rushed to the
spot after the incident which is an admitted fact. As per the evidence of
P.W.1, she raised an alarm stating that the accused snatched her gold chain.
Immediately the neibours rushed to the spot and caught hold of the accused.
Thereafter P.W.1 disclosed to the public that the accused had molested and used
filthy language to her. The learned counsel vehemently argued that, on the side
of the defacto complainant/P.W.1 one of the evidence cites a difference of
opinion, that the P.W.1 had raised alarm that the accused snatched her chain and
ran off, immediately on hearing the alarm the public caught hold of the accused
then the P.W.1 changed her statement. This kind of different statements is not
sustainable under law in order to punish the accused. The learned counsel
argued that the point is not considered by the Court below, so the learned
judges had committed an error and erroneously punished the accused.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution case is well
established before the trial Court after examining 7 witnesses and marked 4
documents. P.W.1 was a budding lawyer at the time of the occurrence, so her
evidence is a solid one. The accused also was taken hold by the public and
handed over to the police. As such the occurrence is an admitted one which
happened in public. The well considered judgment of the trial Court is
confirmed by the learned District Judge. Therefore, the punishment awarded by
the Court below is an appropriate one.
7. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, arguments advanced
by the learned Public Prosecutor and Judgment of the Court below, this Court is
of the view (1) P.W.1 gave an alarm that her chain was snatched by the accused
after he was taken hold by the public, the P.W.1 narrated in public that the
accused molested her and abused her in filthy language; this sort of statement
gives a difference of opinion on the side of P.W.1. This is a Crucial point to
acquit the accused. (2) P.W.1 had not narrated in her written complaint the
manner in which the accused molested her and specific manner and filthy language
used. (3) This Court is of the view that if a lady making such allegations
could be accepted by the public without analysing and applying considered mind.
This court’s further view is that the public will take on a psychological stand
in defence of the woman, and this is a typical case. Hence, this Court finds it
prudent to set aside the judgment passed in C.A.No.89 of 2008 dated 27.07.2009
by the Principal Sessions Judge of Madurai, confirming the conviction sentence
passed in C.C.No.242 of 2007 dated 16.07.2008, by the Judicial Magistrate No.VI,
Madurai and allowed this Criminal Revision Petition.
With the result the above Criminal Revision Petition is allowed,
consequently, the punishment passed by the Court below in C.A.No.89 of 2008
dated 27.07.2009, by the Principal Sessions Judge of Madurai, confirming the
conviction sentence passed in C.C.No.244 of 2007 dated 16.07.2008 by the
Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai sets aside the conviction sentence imposed on
the revision petitioner. Connected M.P. is closed. No costs. It is open to
the revision petitioner to withdraw the fine amount after observing the legal
formalities of the Court.
SKN
To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge,
Madurai.
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.VI,
Madurai.