Madras High Court
Narasimman vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 23 February, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.1195 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.1195 of 2016
Narasimman ... Petitioner
Vs.
State Rep. by Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station, Hosur,
Krishnagiri District.
Crime No.16 of 2012 ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records on the file of the learned
Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District in
Crl.A.No.70/2015 dated 30.08.2016 confirming the judgment in C.C.No.40
of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Hosur,
Krishnagiri District dated 19.11.2015 and set aside the judgment dated
30.08.2016.
For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Priyadharshini
for Mr.M.Machavatharan
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
*****
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1195 of 2016
ORDER
The petitioner/accused in C.C.No.40 of 2012 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Hosur, Krishnagiri District was convicted by the
Trial Court by judgment dated 19.11.2015 for the offence under Section 4 of
Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act and sentenced him to
undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved against the same, the
petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge,
Krishnagiri in C.A.No.70 of 2015. The learned Additional District Judge,
Krishnagiri, by judgment dated 30.08.2016, confirmed the conviction and
finding that under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women
Harassment Act, 1998, the offence shall be punishable to imprisonment
which may extend to one year and also liable for fine which shall not be less
than Rs.10,000/-, accordingly, the Lower Appellate Court confirmed the
sentence imposed by the Trial Court and imposed fine of Rs.10,000/-, in
default, to undergo one month imprisonment. Aggrieved against the same,
the present revision petition is filed.
2.The case against the petitioner is that on 08.10.2012 at about
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1195 of 2016
5.00 p.m., the complainant Somasekar lodged a complaint stating that his
wife Parvathy was harassed, criminally intimidated by uttering words,
showing signs or other means by the petitioner. On 08.10.2012 at about
9.00 a.m, when the victim was alone at home, at that time, the petitioner
forced her to come along with him to have happy moments, when it was
resisted by her, by showing the photograph in the mobile to the victim the
petitioner stated that if she fails to come along with him, the photograph
will be circulated in the social media and pulled her down, the victim raised
alarm, hearing the same the neighbours came there and thereafter, complaint
was lodged. Further, six months prior to the incident, one day at night
hours, the victim was weeping, when the same was questioned by her
husband/complainant, she informed that the petitioner herein was constantly
starring at her when she used to sweep outside her house, wash clothes and
clean vessels and the petitioner was in the habit of showing the photograph
in the mobile and threatening her. She was unable to bare any further, she
also made an attempt to commit suicide and thereafter, complaint was
lodged with the local Police Station. The petitioner was called upon,
warned by the Inspector of Police, thereafter for sometime he was quiet and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1195 of 2016
again, he started harassment. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged. On
completion of investigation, charge sheet filed in the Trial Court, P.W.1 to
P.W.5 were examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 marked and M.O.1 photograph was
marked. On conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted as stated
above.
3.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
though P.W.1 to P.W.3 were projected as eye witnesses in this case,
P.W.1/husband of the victim states that he was in his field and after hearing
the cry of his wife, he came to rescue her. Further, P.W.3, the relative of the
victim stated that he was living in another Village, after coming to know
about the incident he came there and went along with P.W.1 to lodge the
complaint. P.W.4 is the neighbour, who states about the signing in the
observation mahazar on the request of the Police. P.W.5 is the Inspector of
Police, who conducted investigation admits that he examined one
Venkatachalam, Venkatesh and Narayanappam, tea shop owner, but none of
them examined as witnesses. He further submitted that the case of the
complainant is that the petitioner, who used to sit in the tea shop of the said
Narayanappa and from there, he used to signal the victim and cause
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1195 of 2016
harassment. P.W.1 in his evidence states as though he was present when the
incident took place but in the cross examination, he admits that he was in
his field at that time and thereafter, on hearing the cry of the victim, he came
to the scene of occurrence which is a vital contradiction. P.W.2, victim
states that at the time of occurrence, her mother-in-law and husband were at
home, further reconfirms that her husband, mother-in-law and her brother-
in-law were present. He further submitted that P.W.1 admits that there are
several others in the scene of occurrence but none of them were examined.
P.W.5, Investigating Officer admits that it is a public place, there are lot of
houses around the place but none of them were examined. Further, in this
case, M.O.1 photograph ought to have been rejected since the primary
source of M.O.1 and negative was not produced.
4.It is the case of the petitioner that P.W.1 borrowed a sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- from the petitioner and for non-payment of loan, there was a
dispute between them. In this case, complaint lodged only at 2.00 pm on
08.10.2012 with a delay but no reason was given. According to the
petitioner, the victim P.W.2 was pressurized to give false complaint, due to
family circumstances, she agreed to toe the line of P.W.1 and others. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1195 of 2016
Lower Court failed to consider all these vital aspects and had convicted the
petitioner without any reason. The Lower Appellate Court confirmed the
sentence imposing fine. He further submitted that the petitioner herein hails
from the same Village, the petitioner and P.W.2 were in friendly terms
earlier, thereafter they were on their own, both of them got married and
were living with their respective family. The petitioner's daughter grown up
and was likely to get married soon. P.W.1 and his family members had
grouse over the petitioner on coming to know about the earlier relationship
between the petitioner and the victim, they initially lodged a false
complaint, the petitioner was called for enquiry, warned by the Police
Personnel and the case was dropped. Thereafter, on 08.10.2012 there was a
wordy quarrel between the petitioner and P.W.1, his brother and others, they
attacked the petitioner with iron rod and hammer, of which, the petitioner
sustained serious injuries, thereafter the petitioner lodged a complaint with
Bagalur Police Station on the same day, case was registered against P.W.1
and four others for the offences under Sections 294(b), 47, 148, 323, 324
and 506(ii) of IPC, now the investigation completed, charge sheet filed and
the case was taken on file in P.R.C.No.5 of 2016. It is further submitted that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1195 of 2016
for creating a defence in this case, the petitioner was falsely implicated in
the present case.
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in this
case, the victim P.W.2 was constantly harassed and intimidated by the
petitioner. The petitioner, who was living in the same locality used to visit
the tea shop which is situated opposite to the victim's house, sit there and
pass comments about the victim. This is going on for quite sometime. The
victim considering the family life, name and future of the children kept
quite for long time, she used to weep alone, on one such day, P.W.1 found
her weeping in the night, he enquired her and came to know the activities of
the petitioner. Thereafter, complaint was lodged with the Bagalur Police
Station, P.W.1 was called, warned and the case was dropped. On
08.10.2012, at about 9.00 a.m. the petitioner forced the victim to come
along with him and get into Tata Sumo vehicle which was resisted by her,
she got injured, raised alarm, other came to rescue her and she was taken to
the hospital for treatment and thereafter, when it was questioned there was a
scuffle and the villagers manhandled the petitioner. Knowing well that
P.W.1 and his family members were not there, they were consoling the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1195 of 2016
victim and taken her to the hospital, the petitioner's wife lodged a
complaint, case was registered in Crime No.295 of 2012 which was
defended by P.W.1 and his family members, i.e. a subsequent event.
6.He further submitted that in this case, P.W.1 to P.W.3 are t he
witnesses to the occurrence, P.W.4 is the neighbour, who signed in the
observation mahazar and P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer. The evidences
of P.W.1 to P.W.3 are corroborating to each other though there are minor
contradictions which are natural which only confirm the truthfulness of the
witnesses, but P.W.2, the victim herself narrated the sufferings, humiliations
and intimidation by the petitioner. Further, M.O.1 photograph confirms the
pictures of the victim found in the mobile of the petitioner partly exposing
her body while she was doing work, which the petitioner had no right to
capture and preserve in his mobile and further, he sent the photographs to
one Venkatesh and others. The petitioner whatever relationship he had with
P.W.2 before three years cannot use it as a tool to further force the victim to
compromise with him at his will. Both of them now married and living
separately with their respective family. In fact, P.W.2 is now living
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1195 of 2016
separately due to some misunderstanding. He further submitted that it is
informed that due to the petitioner's act, P.W.2 is living separately with her
parents and her matrimonial life got disturbed. The Trial Court analysed the
evidence and rightly convicted the petitioner. The Lower Appellate Court
finding that fine was not imposed, confirmed the sentence and imposed fine
of Rs.10,000/-. He further submitted that the evidences are natural, cogent,
which were analysed and a detailed judgment was rendered which needs no
interference and hence, the petitioner needs no leniency.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was not involved in any other case, in fact the petitioner is a victim, his knee
and hand got fractured, he was taken to Government Hospital immediately,
thereafter taken treatment in Ashok Hospital, where closed fracture in his
forearm, left tibula and multiple abrasion found on the forearm are recorded.
He further submitted that the first complaint was lodged earlier with the
Bagalur Police Station and on coming to know about the registration of FIR
against P.W.1, a false case was registered against the petitioner and further
submitted that the merits of the case to be decided only during the trial in
P.R.C.No.5 of 2016. Be that as it may, the petitioner's daughter is in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1195 of 2016
age of getting married and due to the above case, his daughter's marriage
getting delayed. He further submitted that now the petitioner comes
forward to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the victim. Hence, he
seeks leniency.
8.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials
placed before this Court, this Court finds that the conviction rendered by the
Trial Court is confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court is just and proper.
Further, considering the plea made by the petitioner that his daughter is at a
marriageable age, the petitioner is not involved in any other case and further
he is willing to pay compensation to the victim, this Court is inclined to
modify the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner.
9.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner
by the Trial Court which was confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court is
modified from one year to three months and the petitioner is directed to
deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand only] as compensation
to P.W.2 victim Parvathy, to the credit of C.C.No.40 of 2012 on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Hosur, Krishnagiri District within a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1195 of 2016
period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and
report before this Court. Further, P.W.2 to be informed about the deposit
and the compensation to be paid to P.W.2 Parvathy on filing of appropriate
petition.
10.With the above direction, the Criminal Revision Petition stands
disposed of.
11.Post the matter on 21.03.2022 under the caption “for reporting
compliance”.
23.02.2022
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
cse
Note: Issue order copy on 25.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1195 of 2016
To
1.The Additional District Judge,
Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1195 of 2016
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse
Crl.R.C.No.1195 of 2016
23.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
