Madras High Court
S.Amulraj vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 1 February, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.644 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
Criminal Revision Case No.644 of 2014
S.Amulraj .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of TamilNadu,
Represented by
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Namagiripettai Police Station,
Crime No.41 of 2010 .. Respondent
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure prayed to set aside the judgment made in C.A.No.20 of
2012 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal dated 13.09.2012 by
confirming the judgment dated 02.02.2012 made in C.C.No.116 of 2011 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate No-I, Namakkal.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja
For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran,
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
The petitioner has come forward with this Criminal Revision Case
challenging the judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.644 of 2014
Namakkal dated 13.09.2012, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Namakkal in C.C.No.116 of 2011, dated
02.02.2012.
2. The appellant herein is the accused in Crime No.41 of 2010 on the file
of Namagiripettai Police Station, Namakkal District, and he was charged under
Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, and the same
was denied by him. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to
P.W.4, and Ex.P1 to P7. On the side of the respondent / defendant, Ex.D1 was
marked. On considering both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court
convicted the accused for the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, and sentenced him to undergo 6 months
simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month
simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred
an appeal in Crl.A.No.20 of 2012 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Namakkal and the 1st appellate Court also confirmed findings of the trial
Court. Aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred this revision petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.644 of 2014
3. The points that arise for consideration is this Crl.R.C. is as to,
whether the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that there was a love affair
between P.W.1 and the accused and based on the document Ex.R1, erroneously
convicted the accused under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women
Harassment Act.
4. According to the prosecution, on 21.09.2010, at about 5.30 p.m., the
complainant / P.W.1 while returning back from the college near Akkalampatti,
burial ground, was suddenly stopped by the accused and pulled her shawl and
he said as, “th Xb Nghfyhk;> ehd; cz;id ey;yh
itj;Jf;nfhs;fpNwd;”, for which she refused. Immediately, the accused got
humiliated and started to harass her, which was seen by P.W.2, who objected
the accused. Thereafter, her parents gave a complaint, (Ex.P1) on the same day.
Accordingly, he was charged under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Women Harassment Act, by lodging the FIR- Ex.P3.
5. Based on FIR-Ex.P3, the petitioner was convicted for the offence
under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act and
charged against on the accused was denied by him. To prove the charges,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.644 of 2014
prosecution examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and her parents P.W.3 and P.W.4
marked witness P.W.5. Based upon the prosecution, the trial Court convicted
and sentenced the accused. Aggrieved by the said order he has preferred an
appeal in A.S.No.20 of 2012, The First appellate Court dismissed the appeal
and confirmed the Conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.
6. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have failed to
appreciate the fact that the accused and P.W.1 loved each other for about 4
years and they have got registered themselves as husband and wife. But the
parents of P.W.1 not agreed and the girl is also sailing with them by giving the
false complaint against him. To prove the same, photos-Ex.D1, was produced,
but the same was not appreciated by both the Courts below. Hence, he prayed
to set aside the conviction and sentence, the prosecution has not proved its
case beyond reasonable doubts.
7. On considering this, in Page No.4 and 5 of the judgment, of the trial
Court it reveals that, at the time of questioning under Section 313 (i) Cr.P.C.,
the accused denied the charges and submitted his explanation through
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.644 of 2014
statement. As per that, for the past four years, they loved each other and they
got married before the Arulmigu AngalaParameswaran Amman Koil and when
it came to know, her parents have taken her with them by assuring that by
giving higher education, they would given her back, but they refused to send
her. But divorce notice was issued and steps were also taken for re-
union, and to prove the relationship, he produced documents Ex.R1.-
photographs.
8. On a perusal of the trial Court's finding as well as the First appellate
Court findings, about this aspect, more particularly with regard to Ex.R1
photographs, the same was not appreciated by the Courts below properly. At
the time of questioning under Section 313 Clause (I) Cr.P.C., the accused /
revision petitioner took defence that he had a love affair with P.W.1 and they
got married and produced the photos Ex.R1. The trial Court ought to have
proved this fact by summoning proper witness and prove the truth from the
mouth of the witness, but no such steps were taken by the Courts below.
9. To convict the accused, the charge levelled against him must be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.644 of 2014
proved beyond reasonable doubt, not only by the prosecution, but the Court
below also should take effective steps by getting appropriate material evidence
to prove the charge against the accused.
10. As discussed above, the document Ex.R1 was not properly
appreciated by the Courts below, because, as per the prosecution case, the
P.W.1 was suddenly intercepted by the accused and harassed her. But Ex.R1
photo shows both of them were present, and so there must be possibility of
knowing each other previously before the alleged occurrence and the probable
suspicion must be removed by the prosecution.
11. Suspicion about the probable situation is also to be removed by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, but the prosecution failed to do so. The
trial Court has also not taken any effective steps to admit the evidence with
regard to Ex.R1, and so the charge levelled against the accused has not been
proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt for the reasons as
discussed above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.644 of 2014
12. Both the trial Court as well as the First appellate Court failed to
appreciate the evidence properly and erroneously concluded that the charge
levelled against the accused was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt. Therefore, the findings given by the First appellate Court as well as the
trial Court are set aside. Hence, the conviction imposed on the accused by both
the trial Court and the First appellate Court, are set aside.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision case is allowed and the accused
is acquitted of the charge, thereby, the charge leveled against the accused under
Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, is set aside.
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused also set
aside. The petitioner /accused is directed to be released forthwith, unless his
custody is required in connection with any other case. The fine amount, if paid
by the accused, is directed to be refunded. The bail bond, if any, executed by
the accused, shall stand cancelled.
01.02.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order: Yes/ No
rri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.644 of 2014
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge,
Namakkal.
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Namakkal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.644 of 2014
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rri
Criminal Revision Case No.644 of 2014
01.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
