Madras High Court
Faiz Ahamed vs State Rep. By on 26 November, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.395 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.R.C.No.395 of 2017
Faiz Ahamed
... Petitioner
Vs.
State rep. by
Inspector of Police,
Katpadi Railway Police Station,
Vellore District.
(Crime No.342/2013)
.. Respondent
Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., praying to
call for the records on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, (Fast
Track Court), Vellore, Vellore District in Crl.A.No.50 of 2015 dated
08.12.2016 confirming the judgment in C.C.No.598 of 2014 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore, Vellore District dated 04.09.2015
and set aside the judgment dated 08.12.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Kannadasan
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
***
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.395 of 2017
ORDER
This Criminal Revision has been preferred challenging the judgment of
the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Vellore dated
08.12.2016 made in Crl.A.No.50 of 2015.
2. This case has arisen out of the complaint (Ex.P1) given by PW1 on
18.09.2013. The short facts of the prosecution case is that on 17.09.2013, the
de facto complainant (PW1) was travelling along with her mother in Dehradun
to Madras Express and they travelled in Coach No.S2. PW1 was given with
the middle berth No.18 and her Mother was allotted berth No.17. The accused
was travelling in the same coach and he was placed in berth No.19. During
night hours, the accused, who was sleeping in the upper berth, had touched the
breast of PW1 from upper berth. He once again did the same when he was
about to get down at Katpadi. At that point of time also he touched PW1
misappropriately. PW1 shouted and thereafter, the Railway police got alerted.
This was witnessed by other passengers and subsequently, PW1 gave a
complaint (Ex.P1). On the basis of Ex.P1-complaint, PW4 registered the case
in Crime No.342 of 2013 of Katpadi Railway Police Station for the offence
under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.395 of 2017
1998. PW5 is the Investigation Officer, who had investigated the case by
examining the witnesses, filed the charge sheet against the accused under
Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998.
3. After the case was taken on file and the accused appeared, copies
were furnished to him and he pleaded innocent. Since there are sufficient
materials to frame charge under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act, charge was framed and the accused was
questioned. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
4. During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, five
witnesses were examined as PW1 to 5 and two exhibits were marked as
Exs.P1 and P2. On the side of the defence, no witness was examined and no
document was marked. After considering the materials on record, the learned
trial Judge found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 4 of Tamil
Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and convicted the accused
and sentenced him to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a
fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
three months. The appeal preferred by the accused in C.A.No.50 of 2015 was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.395 of 2017
also dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court was confirmed. Aggrieved
over that the petitioner/accused has preferred this Criminal Revision Case.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Courts
below have not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective and omitted
to give significance to the contradictions. It is also submitted that some of the
material witness have not been examined and the same creates doubt.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State
submitted that PW1 is the victim and her evidence has been correctly
appreciated by the Courts below and there is no reason for PW1 to give any
false complaint against the accused. Hence, he submitted that the judgments
of the Courts below warrant no interference.
7. Point for consideration:
Whether the conviction and sentence of the accused for the
offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment
of Women Act by the learned Sessions Judge basing on the materials
available on record is fair and proper?
8. On perusal of the complaint given by PW1/de facto complainant, it is
seen that she was working as an Assistant Professor in National Institute of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.395 of 2017
Technology. On 17.09.2013 she was travelling in the DDN-MAS train along
with her mother. She was given with berth No.18 and her mother was given
berth No.17 in S2 coach. The accused, who was a business man, was also
travelling in the same coach and he was in berth No.19. In view of the said
reason, the accused had to sleep on the upper berth.
9. PW1 in her evidence, had deposed the manner in which the accused
misbehaved with her during that midnight. Since the accused was travelling
in upper berth, he took advantage of the situation. Berths are placed in trains
in such a way that the person sleeping on the upper berth can touch the person
on the middle berth. PW1, being an educated and reputed person need not
give a false complaint by causing embarrassment to herself. A The accused is
total stranger and hence PW1 and her family can not have any motive against
the accused. If a woman undergoes such kind of sexual harassment in public,
the sudden feeling which would engross her would be shame and
embarrassment. It spoils their mental peace and intrudes into their private
space. Since PW1 was travelling with her mother, it would have caused
agitation in the mind of her mother also. The accused did not stop disturbing
her and he repeated his cheap act by thinking that PW1 would not dare to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.395 of 2017
complain. When he was about to get down at his station Katpadi, he once
again touched her inappropriately. This escalated the tension and PW1
swiftly caught hold of him and dealt him in public. Thereafter he was handed
over to police.
10. The learned Trial Judge has adverted into the evidence of
prosecution and appreciated it in a proper perspective. In the absence of any
previous enmity or motive between the de facto complainant and the accused,
I find no reason to reject the evidence of PW1, which played the bedrock for
the findings of the lower courts.
11. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted his
arguments on merits, at the conclusion of his arguments, he requested this
Court to show indulgence in the matter of punishment. The learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that the accused is not a habitual offender and he
does not have any criminal antecedence. The accused is said to have paid the
entire fine amount and he had also undergone one month simple imprisonment
and hence the period already undergone by the accused may be treated as
punishment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.395 of 2017
12. Taking into consideration of the submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, I feel that the fine imposed by the trial Court should
be enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/- and the accused should be
convicted and sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by
him.
13. In the result, this Criminal Revision case is partly allowed. The
judgment of the Appellate Court is modified to the extent that the accused is
found guilty for the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act and he has been convicted and sentenced to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of imprisonment already
undergone by him and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand only), within a period of two(2) weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order, in default, to undergo 2 weeks Simple Imprisonment. The
fine amount if any already paid by the accused can be adjusted with the fine
now imposed and the balance fine should be collected.
26.11.2021
Index: Yes/No
Speaking / Non Speaking Order
kmi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.395 of 2017
R.N.MANJULA, J
kmi
To
1.The Additional District Judge,
(Fast Track Court),
Vellore, Vellore District.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.IV,
Vellore,
Vellore District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Katpadi Railway Police Station,
Vellore District.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai-600 104.
Crl.R.C.No.395 of 2017
26.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
