Madras High Court
David @ Lawrance David vs The Inspector Of Police on 25 June, 2021
Crl.A.(MD).No.219 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :25.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Crl.A.(MD).219 of 2016
and
Crl.M.P.(MD).No.2881 of 2021
1.David @ Lawrance David
2.Gandhi @ Arulanandham
... Appellants
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Abhiramam Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.132 of 2007) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure
Code, to call for the records relating to the judgment passed in S.C.No.72/2011
dated 20.05.2016 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram
and set aside the same and acquit the appellants/accused 1 & 3 from all the
charges leveled against them.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Venkateswaran
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
JUDGMENT
The Criminal Appeal has been filed to call for the records relating to the
judgment passed in S.C.No.722011 dated 20.05.2016 on the file of the Fast
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.(MD).No.219 of 2016
Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram and set aside the same and acquit the
appellants/accused 1 & 3 from all the charges levelled against them.
2.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Judge had
framed charges under Sections 307, 341 and 323 of IPC along with Section 4 of
Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998. After due trial, the
learned trial judge had convicted A1 under Sections 341 and 323 of IPC and
A2 and A3 under Sections 341 and 323 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998.
3. After trial, A2 died. A1 and A3 filed the present appeal before this
Court. The learned counsel for the appellants invited the attention of this Court
to Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and
also invited the attention of this Court to the statement recorded from the
Victim/P.W.1 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C by the learned Judicial Magistrate.
The learned counsel for the appellant further invited the attention of this Court
to the compliant preferred by the P.W.1 and the evidence of P.W.3. As per the
evidence of P.W.3, the P.W.1 was working as teacher and he had not mentioned
alleged to have been affected by the A1 and A3.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.(MD).No.219 of 2016
4.Under those circumstances, the conviction of A3 alone is not attracted
and the conviction of A3 under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act is to be set aside and the offences under Sections
341 and 323 of IPC are compoundable.
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor have submitted the records
from the police concerned stating that the P.W.1 has no grievances in
compounding the offences
.
6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted the records and it
was mentioned that there was no grievances in compounding the offences and
they are the relatives and they were residing in the same village and subsequent
to the case, there was no fresh dispute among them.
7.Therefore, this Court accepted the arguments of the learned counsel for
the appellants and considered the age of A3/second appellant herein.
8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor mentioned that the
victim/P.W.1 was working as a Teacher and she does not accept any mandatory
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.(MD).No.219 of 2016
compensation from A1 and A3. Since, A1 is working as an auto driver in
Madurai and A3 is a senior citizen residing in the same village and working as a
farmer. Therefore, P.W.1 had declined to accept any compensation and the same
is recorded.
In the light of the above submission by the learned Government Advocate
(Crl.Side), the conviction of the accused 1 and 3 passed by the learned
Additional Distwrict and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram,
is confirmed. The sentence of imprisonment alone is modified. The period of
imprisonment already undergone by A1 and A2 is set off. The Criminal Appeal
is disposed of, accordingly. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
25.06.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
tta
Note:(i) In view of the present lock down owing
to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the order that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.(MD).No.219 of 2016
To,
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Abhiramam Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.(MD).No.219 of 2016
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP,J
tta
Crl.A.(MD).219 of 2016
and
Crl.M.P.(MD).No.2881 of 2021
25.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
