Madras High Court
Bharatharajan vs The State Rep. By on 25 January, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.825 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.01.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.No.825 of 2014
Bharatharajan ... Petitioner
Versus
The State rep. by
Sub-Inspector of Police,
Thalaignayiru Police Station,
Nagapattinam District. ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section
401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and to set aside the
judgment passed by the Mahila Court-cum-Fast Track Court, Nagpattinam in
C.A.No.41 of 2011, dated 27.02.2014 by confirming the conviction and partly
modified the sentence passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial
Magistrate, Vedaranyam in C.C.No.14 of 2009, dated 01.08.2011.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Dhanaraj
for Mr.T.P.Sekar
For Respondent : L.A.J.Selvam
Government Advocate
(Criminal Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/11
Crl.R.C.No.825 of 2014
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case in Crl.R.C.No.825 of 2014 is filed by
petitioner/accused, aggrieved by the judgment, dated 01.08.2011 of the learned
District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vedaranyam in C.C.No.14 of 2009,
thereby, convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 448 of Indian
Penal Code and imposing a sentence of six months Simple Imprisonment and
fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo two months Simple Imprisonment,
under Section 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code and to undergo six months Simple
Imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to
undergo another two months Simple Imprisonment; under Section 4 of the
Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Woman Harassment Act, 1998 and to undergo two
years Simple Imprisonment and Rs.10,000/- fine and in default of payment of
fine, to undergo two months Simple Imprisonment and the judgment of the
learned Mahila Court-cum-Fast Track Court, Nagapattinam, dated 27.02.2014
in Crl.A.No.41 of 2011, thereby, confirming the conviction and sentence
imposed by the Trial Court except to reduce the imprisonment of two years, in
respect of the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women
Harassment Act, 1998 to one year Simple Imprisonment.
2. On 18.11.2008, P.W.1, Renuka appeared before the Thalaignayiru
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.825 of 2014
Police Station and lodged a complaint stating that when she was in her uncle's
house, on 17.11.2008 at about 2.30 P.M, the petitioner/accused threatened her
on knife point and made her to remove her 'Dhavani' (dupatta) and when she
further attempted to remove her jacket, she fainted and therefore, she was taken
to water pipe in the front side of the house and at that time, her mother came
and she was rescued. On the said complaint, P.W.7, Sub-Inspector of Police
registered a case under Sections 354, 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code and Section
4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Woman Harassment Act, 1998 and took up the
case for investigation and filed a final report, proposing the petitioner/accused
guilty of the offences.
3. The case was taken on file by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial
Magistrate, Vedaranyam in C.C.No.14 of 2009 and upon issue of summons and
furnishing of copies under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the
petitioner/accused denied the charges and stood trial. Thereafter, the
prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-4. Upon being
questioned about adverse evidence and circumstances on record under Section
313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the same as false.
Thereafter, no oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the defence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.825 of 2014
4. The Trial Court, therefore, proceeded to hear the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor for the prosecutrix and the learned Counsel for the accused
and by a judgment, dated 01.08.2011, found that on the basis of the evidence of
the victim, namely P.W.1 and the documents marked on behalf of the
prosecution, the case of the prosecution is believable. The Trial Court further
found that the contradictions mentioned by the accused were not proved by
questioning the investigating officer and therefore rejected the defence of the
accused and convicted the petitioner/accused for the offence under Sections
448, 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code and Section 354 r/w 4 of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Woman Harassment Act, 1998 and sentenced the
petitioner/accused as aforesaid.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused filed Crl.A.No.41 of
2011 and the Mahila Court-cum-Fast Track Court, Nagapattinam, by a
judgment, dated 27.02.2014, after independently appraising the evidence on
record, upon considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, held that the prosecution
has proved the offence beyond any doubt and confirmed the conviction of the
Trial Court and modified only the sentence in respect of the offence under
Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Woman Harassment Act, 1998 from
a period of two years to that of one year. Aggrieved by the same, the present
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.825 of 2014
Revision Case is laid before this Court.
6. Mr.G.Dhanaraj, learned Counsel representing learned Counsel for the
petitioner, would submit that in this case, the contradiction in the evidence of
the prosecution not just relate to the Section 161 Cr.P.C., statements given by
the witnesses, but, are glaring and material contradictions in the evidence before
the Court and the documents marked and therefore, the Trial Court committed a
grave illegality in brushing aside as if the contradictions were not put to the
investigating officer, namely P.W.7. He would submit that P.W.1, in her
evidence, stated that the incident had happened when she was in the front yard
of the house, whereas, in the F.I.R, she mentioned that she was inside the
house.
7. While, in the evidence, she had deposed that she fainted and that she
was dragged outside to the pipe, the same was not the case in the earlier
statement made in the First Information Report. Further, the other witnesses,
namely P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 have clearly deposed about the fact that the
petitioner/accused was serving food in the wedding and the previous enmity
between the two families was also spoken to by the said witnesses. Therefore,
the case of the prosecution becomes unbelievable even by the statement of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.825 of 2014
P.Ws.3 to 5 itself. Further, P.W.6 clearly deposed before the Court that P.W.1
was wearing a Chudidhar at the time of the incident, while, P.W.1 deposed
about the 'Pavadai-Dhavani'. Therefore, this material contradiction, which has
been pointed out by the accused and when considering the same on merits, the
Trial Court simply brushed aside the same by giving a reason that these
contradictions were not put to investigating officer. He would submit that these
are not contradictions, which are based on Section 161 Cr.P.C., statements,
which would make it mandatory to be put to the investigating officer. The
learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that even the first
Appellant Court did not consider any of the said defence and merely by
extracting the statements of P.Ws.1 to 5, the Appellate Court had confirmed the
conviction and sentence. He would, therefore, pray that this is a case for
interference by this Court in exercise of the powers in the revisional jurisdiction.
8. Opposing the said submissions, Mr.L.A.J.Selvam, the learned
Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that in this case, P.W.1,
the victim has deposed about the harassment meted out to her. The
contradictions are not in such a manner so as to discredit the entire evidence
and therefore, the Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court had rightly
convicted the petitioner/accused. However, he would, on instructions, submit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.825 of 2014
that P.W.1 has filed the affidavit before this Court stating that originally, she
had lodged a complaint in Cr.No.345 of 2008 and she also appeared as P.W.1
and testified before the Court. However, she had moved on in life thereafter
and married one Balaji of Karuppambulam village and lived with him from
2010 to 2016 and after 2016, her husband Balaji died and she has come back to
her own village and is presently living peacefully along with her child in her
parents' house. In the interregnum, the enmity between both the families has
faded away and they are in good and proper relationship. The
petitioner/accused is related to her as cousin brother and both the families are
now amicably living in the village and she had prayed that she wants peace by
amicable resolution and compromise in the matter and she requests that this
Court should accept the compromise and take into consideration the state of
affairs between the both the families while passing orders.
9. I have considered the rival submissions made on the either side and the
affidavit filed on behalf of the victim. I am in agreement with the learned
Counsel appearing for the petitioner that when the accused has raised several
important and clinching defences in the nature of material contradictions in the
evidence, all the contradictions are brushed aside by the Trial Court by one
sentence that they were not put to the investigating officer. Only if there is any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.825 of 2014
improvement or contrary statements made by the witnesses than which are
made in the Section 161 Cr.P.C., statements, it is necessary for the accused side
to cross-examine the investigating officer and bring on record the
contradictions.
10. However, in this case, the contradiction is between the depositions
and the F.I.R. The F.I.R is already marked as Ex.P3 and therefore, the
contradiction as to the place of occurrence is established by the accused.
Similarly, even there is contradiction between the witnesses regarding the dress
which was worn by P.W.1; and as to the fact whether she fainted or not; and
the prosecution witnesses themselves have spoken about the fact that the
accused was serving food in the wedding, arising doubt as to the very
prosecution case itself.
11. This apart, even though in matters relating to the offence against
woman, normally this Court will not render a verdict based on a subsequent
compromise, but, the affidavit filed by the victim whereby she has stated that
she is completely forgiven and forgotten about the incident and have moved on
in her life and presently, she, being a widow, living in the same village and both
families living at peace, the same is also taken into consideration. Therefore,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.825 of 2014
considering the error committed by the Trial Court as well as the first Appellate
Court coupled with the affidavit filed before this Court by P.W.1, I hold that the
conviction of the petitioner/accused is unsustainable and the petitioner/accused
is entitled for the benefit of doubt.
12. Therefore, the judgment of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial
Magistrate, Vedaranyam in C.C.No.14 of 2009, dated 01.08.2011 and the
judgment of the Mahila Court-cum-Fast Track Court, Nagpattinam in
C.A.No.41 of 2011, dated 27.02.2014 are set aside. The accused is acquitted of
all the charges. Fine amount, if any, paid by him is ordered to be refunded to
him.
13. The Criminal Revision Case is allowed accordingly.
25.01.2022
Index : yes
Internet : yes
Speaking order
grs
To
1.The Mahila Court-cum-Fast Track Court,
Nagpattinam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.825 of 2014
2.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,
Vedaranyam.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
4.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Thalaignayiru Police Station,
Nagapattinam District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.825 of 2014
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY. J.,
grs
Crl.R.C.No.825 of 2014
25.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
