Pradeep vs State – Represented By
2021 Latest Caselaw 17402 Mad

                                                                           CRL.R.C.No.1383 of 2019

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED :25.08.2021

                                                       CORAM:

                                   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                                CRL.R.C.No.1383 of 2019


                      1.Pradeep
                        S/o, Gajendiran

                      2. Gajendiran
                         S/o, Arumugam

                      3. Porkilaikrishnaveni,
                         W/o, Gajendiran                                          ... Petitioners

                                                      Versus
                      State – Represented by
                      The Station House Officer,
                      PCR Cell,
                      Puducherry.                                                 ...
                      Respondent

                      PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 of the Code of
                      Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records in so far relates to the
                      order passed in C.A.No.36 of 2016, dated 08.11.2019 on the file of the II
                      Additional Sessions Judge, at Puducherry, whereby modified the order
                      passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Puducherry in C.C.No.56 of

                      Page No.1 of 9


http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                              CRL.R.C.No.1383 of 2019

                      2013 dated 14.09.2016 and set aside the same.
                                       For Petitioner   : Mr.Rajkumar
                                                          for M/s.R.Hemalatha

                                       For Respondent   : Mr.D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
                                                          Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry)
                                                         ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to call for the entire

records relates to the order passed in C.A.No.36 of 2016, dated

08.11.2019 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, at Puducherry,

whereby modified the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate at

Puducherry in C.C.No.56 of 2013 dated 14.09.2016 and set aside the

same.

2. The respondent police registered a case against the petitioners for

the offences under sections 471, 493, 506(ii) IPC r/w 34 IPC and 7(1)(d)

of PCR Act and after investigation altered the sections against the accused

as 417 IPC and 7(i)(d) of PCR Act r/w 34 IPC and laid a charge sheet

before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry and the learned

Magistrate has taken the case on file in C.C.No.56 of 2013. After

completing the formalities under 207 Cr.P.C., framed the charges against

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.R.C.No.1383 of 2019

the petitioners for the offences under section 417 IPC and section 7(1)(d)

of PCR Act r/w section 34 of IPC. After framing charges, in order to

prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, during

trial, as many as 14 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 14 and 12

documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P12. Besides that, five material

objects were also exhibited as M.O.Nos.1 to 5. After trial, the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry convicted the petitioners for the

offence under sections 417 IPC and Sec.7(1)(d) of PCR Act r/w 34 IPC

and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment each and to

pay a fine of Rs.500/- and also they were convicted and sentenced to

undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-

for the offences under section 417 IPC and section 7(1)(d) of PCR Act r/w

34 IPC respectively, in default to undergo one month Simple

Imprisonment on each section and the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence passed

by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry, the petitioners have filed the

appeal before the Chief Judge, Puducherry in Criminal Appeal No.36 of

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.R.C.No.1383 of 2019

2016. The learned Chief Judge, made over the appeal to the II Additional

Sessions Judge, Puducherry. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge at

Puducherry after hearing the arguments and perused the records, confirmed

the conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate

against A1 for the offence under section 417 IPC and however not found

guilt of the second and third petitioners for the offence under section 417

r/w 34 IPC and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the

Magistrate for the above section against A2 and A3. However found guilt

of the offences punishable under section 7(1)(d) of PCR Act and confirmed

the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court for the offences under

section 7(1)(d) of PCR Act against all the petitioners. Now challenging the

said judgment of the trial court, the petitioners have filed the present

Revision before this Court.

4. Though the Revision Case is pending for three years and since

this Court granted suspension of sentence, taking advantage of the same,

the petitioners are not ready to dispose the Revision. This Court perused

the grounds of Revision filed by the petitioners and heard the learned

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.R.C.No.1383 of 2019

Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry).

5. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 and A1 are classmates

when they were studying in school and later they developed their close

relationship. P.W.1 believed that A1 would marry her and A1 had physical

relationship saying that he would convince his parents to marry her. Later

A1 refused to marry her by indicating her caste and his parents also

rejected her marriage proposal for the same reason. P.W.1 approached

A1's parents, they abused her with filthy language. Hence the complaint.

6. The main allegation against the first petitioner is that A1 fall on

love with P.W.1 and promised to marry her and had a physical relationship

with her. Subsequently A1 refused to marry P.W1 by indicating her caste.

In order to substantiate the charges framed against the petitioners, on the

side of the prosecution, totally 14 witnesses were examined and 12

documents were marked and five material objects were also marked.

P.W.1 is the victim as well as the defacto complainant. Victim was

examined as P.W.1 she clearly deposed that A1 had fallen love with P.W.1

and had physical relationship and promised to marry her. Subsequently, he

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.R.C.No.1383 of 2019

refused to marry her, because she belongs to member of the Schedule

Caste Community. Therefore, she filed a complaint before the respondent

police and the respondent police registered the case and investigated the

matter. P.Ws.2 and 3 also corroborated the same. P.W.5 is the

independent witness, who has corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and

other witnesses also supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.12 is the

Tahsildar who issued the certificate about P.W.1. who belongs to the

scheduled caste community. The trial court appreciated the prosecution

evidence especially the evidence of P.W.1 that A1 had intimacy with P.W.1

and promised to marry her and subsequently refused to marry her

indicating the caste of P.W.1.

7. Though the trial court convicted the second and third petitioners

for the offence under section 417 IPC, the appellate court reversed the

finding against second and third petitioner. However hoping prosecution

clause under section 12 of PCR Act, all the petitioners knowing fully well

that P.W.1 belongs to the member of Scheduled Caste Community and they

refused the marriage proposal and humiliated their caste name saying the

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.R.C.No.1383 of 2019

reason that she belong to Scheduled Caste. Therefore, invoked the

presumption clause under 12 of PCR Act and convicted them for the

offence under section 7(1)(d) of PCR Act.

8. The scope of the revision is very limited and the revisional court

while dealing with the revision has to see as to whether there is any

perversity in the appreciation of evidence in the judgment. It is a well

settled proposition of law that the Revisional Court cannot sit in the arm

chair of the appellate court and reappreciate the entire materials.

Therefore, this Court has to see is there any perversity in the appreciation

of the materials.

9. On a reading of the entire materials which clearly shows that A1

had fallen on love with P.W.1 and had a physical relationship and intimacy

with P.W.1 and subsequently refused to marry her. A2 and A3 also

knowing fully well about the relationship between A1 and P.W.1. The case

of P.W.1 is that the petitioners refused the marriage proposal indicating her

caste name and therefore both the courts below rightly appreciated the

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.R.C.No.1383 of 2019

evidence and convicted the petitioners and passed the order. Therefore,

this Court does not find any perversity in the findings of the both the

Courts below. There is no merit in the Revision and the same is liable to

be dismissed. Accordingly the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

25.08.2021

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No mfa

To

1. The II Additional Sessions Judge, II Additional Sessions Court, Puducherry.

2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Puducherry.

3. The Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry.

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.R.C.No.1383 of 2019

mfa

CRL.R.C.No.1383 of 2019

25.08.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in