Madras High Court
Kumar @ Stephenraj vs State Rep.By on 10 January, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.404 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 10.01.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.R.C.No.404 of 2017
Kumar @ Stephenraj .. Petitioner
Vs.
State Rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
Neyveli Thermal Police Station,
Crime No.33 of 2014. .. Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case has been filed under sections 397
read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the judgment of
the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli in
S.T.C.No.729 of 2014 dated 05.11.2016 and confirmed by the III
Additional District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam dated
13.02.2017 in C.A.No.101 of 2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
(Legal aid)
For Respondent : Mr.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.404 of 2017
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred challenging
the judgment of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Cuddalore at Virudhachalam, dated 13.02.2017 made in C.A.No. 101 of
2016, which confirmed the judgment of the learned District Munsif cum
Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli, dated 05.11.2016 passed in S.T.C.No.729 of
2014.
2. The revision petitioner is the accused and the defacto
complainant / PW.1 is the wife of the revision petitioner. On the
complaint given by PW.1 against the revision petitioner that he harassed
her by developing illicit intimacy with another woman; when PW.1 was at
her mother's house, on 14.03.2003 at about 1.30 p.m., the revision
petitioner trespassed into her mother's house and abused her in filthy
language and pulled her child and went away in his two wheeler; when
the neighbour /PW.5 rushed to rescue the child, the accused abused her
also in filthy language and gone away.
3. A case was registered by PW.7/ the Sub Inspector of Police
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.404 of 2017
on the basis of the above complaint in Crime No.33 of 2014 of Neyveli
Thermal Police Station for the offence under Sections 294 (b), 448 and
506(i) IPC. After registering the case, he took up the case for
investigation and he visited the place of occurrence and prepared a rough
sketch and the observation mahazar in the presence of the witnesses. He
also enquired the witnesses and obtained their statement. The accused
was surrendered before the Court. After completing the investigation, a
final report was filed against the accused under Sections.294 (b), 448 and
506(i) IPC.
4. After the case was taken on file and on being satisfied
with the materials produced before the Court, the learned trial Judge
framed charges against the accused for the offences under Sections
294(b), 448 and 506 (i) IPC and the accused was questioned. Since the
accused pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried, trial was conducted.
5. During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution
seven (7) witnesses were examined as PW.1 to P.W.7 and four (4)
documents have been marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P4. When the incriminating
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.404 of 2017
evidence available on record is put to the accused under Section 313
Cr.P.C., he denied the same. On the side of the defence, no witness was
examined and no document was marked.
6. After the conclusion of the trial and on considering the
materials available on record, the learned trial Judge found the accused
guilty and convicted him for the offences under Sections 294 (b) and 448
IPC and sentenced him to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment for
the offence under Section 294(b) IPC and to undergo two months Simple
Imprisonment for the offence under Section 448 IPC. No fine. The period
of imprisonment shall run consecutively.
7. Against the said conviction, the petitioner/accused has
filed an appeal in C.A.No.101 of 2016, before the learned III Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, which was dismissed on
13.02.2017, confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved over
the said dismissal, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the
petitioner/accused.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.404 of 2017
the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the State.
9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused
submitted that the offence u/s.448 of IPC would not be made out for the
reasons that the accused is none other than the husband of PW.1 and he
had just visited the house of his wife; the accused did not abuse PW.1 or
any one in public view; even the prosecution witnesses have not stated the
similar words in connection with the charge under Section 294 (b) IPC
and they have given contradictory statement before the Court. Hence the
revision petition has to be allowed.
10. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing
for the State submitted that the occurrence had taken place in public
view; the revision petitioner had abused PW.1 and PW.5 in filthy
language while he was forcefully taking his child from them and about to
leave the place in his two wheeler; the act was witnessed by other
neighbours; since PW.1 was residing at her mother's house due to some
misunderstanding between the couples, the accused cannot say that he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.404 of 2017
went to the place of occurrence as a matter of right. Hence the criminal
revision case should be dismissed.
11. Points for consideration:
Whether the finding and judgment of the lower appellate
Court suffer from any unfairness, impropriety or illegality?.
12. The fact that the accused and the defacto complainant
are the husband and wife was not denied. Due to some marital dispute,
there was some misunderstanding between the couples. It is alleged that
when their marriage is in subsistence, the revision petitioner developed an
illegal affair with some other woman and that got aggravated the problem
between the couples. At the time of occurrence, PW.1 was residing at her
mother's house with her child. Her evidence would reveal that the accused
had been to the house of PW.1's mother and grabbed the child by force
and abused PW.1 and PW.5 who came to rescue the child. When the
couples were not in cordial terms, it is highly unlikely that the accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.404 of 2017
paid a casual visit to his mother-in-law's house. The revision
petitioner/accused had gone to place of occurrence and he also taken
away the child from PW.1 and her mother. The above conduct of the
accused would reveal his intention to trespass into P.W.1 mother's house
to commit the offence. So the presence of the revision petitioner at the
house of PW.1's mother cannot be construed as casual visit.
13. The revision petitioner not only abused PW.1 and also
abused PW.5, when he came to rescue the child. When the accused took
the child and about to leave away in his motorcycle, PW.5 met him on
the road and prevented him from carrying the child. The accused abused
her in filthy words while he was taking away his two wheeler. So all these
could have been happened only in the street of PW.1 mother's house.
While the accused was abusing some one, he would not have chosen one
particular word for abusing. So, it is quite natural that the prosecution
witness would tell different words uttered by the revision petitioner. So it
cannot be the reason for the Courts to come to a conclusion that the
accused had not committed any offence under Section 294 (b) IPC. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.404 of 2017
trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court had correctly appreciated
the evidence and recorded the guilt of the accused for committing for the
offence under Section 294 (b) IPC and convicted him.
14. It is seen from the records that the revision petitioner had
filed a petition under Section 360 of Cr.P.C for getting the benefit of
probation which is open to the first offender. However, his petition was
dismissed by the lower appellate Court for the reason that he had filed the
petition shortly after the judgment is pronounced. During the arguments,
the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that since the
case has arisen out of misunderstanding between the couples and it is a
domestic issue, some lenience should be shown in the punishment. He
further submitted that the accused is the first offender and he should be
given with the benefits under Section 360 IPC.
15. Though the accused is said to be the first offender, this is
not the offence which could have been committed against any other
person. He had taken away his own child and intimidated his wife and his
in-laws. If such violent act of the revision petitioner went without any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.404 of 2017
punishment, he will be emboldened to repeat it again. In order to deter his
violent attitude he should be awarded with some appropriate punishment.
Considering the nature of the offence and other attending circumstances, I
feel that punishment for the offence could be imposed in terms of fine
instead of imprisonment.
16. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is partly
allowed and the judgment of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate is modified to the extent that the accused is found guilty for
the offences under Sections (i) 294 (b) and (ii) 448 IPC and convicted
and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one
month Simple Imprisonment for each offence instead of imprisonment.
10.01.2022
Internet : Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
rpl
To
1. The III Additional District and Sessions Court,
Cuddalore at Vridhachalam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.404 of 2017
2. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli
3.The Inspector of Police,
Neyveli Thermal Police Station,
Neyveli.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
R.N. MANJULA, J.
rpl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.404 of 2017
Crl.R.C.No.404 of 2017
10.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
