Selvam vs The State Represented By
2022 Latest Caselaw 15965 Mad

                                                                           CRL.R.C.No.15 of 2018

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED : 10.10.2022

                                                        CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                  Crl.R.C.No.15 of 2018

                     Selvam                                               ... Petitioner

                                                           Vs.

                     The State represented by
                     The Sub-Inspector of Police,
                     K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station,
                     Chennai.                                             ... Respondent


                     PRAYER: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w
                     401 of Cr.P.C to set-aside the judgment confirmed by the Learned XIX
                     Additional Sessions Judge at Chennai in C.A.No.174 of 2017 dated
                     16.12.2017 which was passed by the Learned V Metropolitan Magistrate,
                     Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai by order dated 15.06.2017 in
                     C.C.No.1784 of 2015.


                                     For Petitioner    :     Mr.R.Lingakumar
                                     For Respondent    :     Mr.A.Gopinath
                                                             Government Advocate (Crl. Side)




                     Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                             CRL.R.C.No.15 of 2018



                                                          ORDER

This Criminal Revision case has been filed to set-aside the

judgment confirmed by the Learned XIX Additional Sessions Judge at

Chennai in C.A.No.174 of 2017 dated 16.12.2017 which was passed by

the Learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai by

order dated 15.06.2017 in C.C.No.1784 of 2015.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim is running a

provisions shop at No.207 at the junction of Annai Sathya Nagar, 9th

Street and 2nd Main Road. While being so, on 16.05.2015, at 10.30 a.m.,

when the victim and her husband were in the shop, the petitioner came to

the shop and asked for water packet and plastic tumbler. When the victim

said that whatever the things asked by the petitioner were not available,

immediately the petitioner scolded the victim in filthy language. Again, on

18.05.2015, the petitioner went to the victim shop and scolded her in

filthy language and also he removed his inner wear and he stood nudely

in front of the shop. Immediately, the victim lodged a complaint.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.R.C.No.15 of 2018

3. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed a final

report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.1784 of 2015

by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b),

506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of

Women Act.

4. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.10 were examined

and Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked. On the side of the petitioner, no one was

examined and no document was marked. On perusal of oral and

documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the petitioner guilty for the

offence under Section 294(b) of IPC and awarded compensation for a

sum of Rs.1000/-, in default, undergo two weeks simple imprisonment.

He was also convicted for the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu

Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and sentenced him to undergo

one year simple imprisonment and awarded compensation for a sum of

Rs.5000/-, in default, undergo one month simple imprisonment.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same

was dismissed, confirming the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence,

this revision.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.R.C.No.15 of 2018

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

prosecution examined 10 witnesses. The victim was examined as P.W.1

and her husband was examined as P.W.2. According to the defacto

complainant, P.W.1 had lodged a complaint even on 16.05.2015.

However, the Investigation Officer, who was examined as P.W.10, denied

and stated that he had never received any complaint on 16.05.2015.

Therefore, there was no occurrence took place on 16.05.2015. Further,

for the occurrence taken place on 16.05.2015, P.W.1 lodged a complaint

on 18.05.2015 and the same was registered in Crime No.492 of 2015 for

the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(i) of IPC and Section

4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. That apart,

there was contradiction of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the prosecution failed to

prove the case beyond any doubt. He further submitted that neighbour

shop owner was examined as P.W.3. In his chief examination, he deposed

that he owned shop near to the victim's shop. In cross examination, he

said that he owned shop after ten shops from the victim's shop. The

distance between both the shops is 150 metres. P.W.3 also stated that he

did not see the occurrence and he is only an ear-say witness. P.W.4 also

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.R.C.No.15 of 2018

deposed that he is only an ear-say witness and he did not see the

occurrence. Even then the Courts below convicted the petitioner. There

was no threatening even according to the prosecution and no evidence is

made out under Section 506(i) of IPC. On the same date of occurrence,

the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for

the respondent would submit that there was no contradiction between

P.W.1 and P.W.2 who are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. Though,

the Investigation Officer denied that P.W.1 did not lodge any complaint

on 16.05.2015, the said complaint has nothing to do with the subsequent

occurrence took place on 18.05.2015. The FIR was registered for the

occurrence took place on 18.05.2015 and as such the Trial Court rightly

convicted the petitioner. There was no allegation to attract the offence

under Section 506(i) of IPC and as such the Trial Court rightly acquitted

the petitioner for the offence under Section 506(i) of IPC. P.W.3 and

P.W.4 are also eye witnesses to the occurrence and they categorically

deposed that there was quarrel in front of the victim's shop by the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.R.C.No.15 of 2018

petitioner herein. Therefore, the minor discrepancies and the

contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner would

not affect the prosecution case when the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are

trust worthy, cogent and corroborated by the testimonies of the other

witnesses irrespective of the fact that they have turned hostile later on.

7. Heard, Mr.R.Lingakumar, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

appearing for the respondent.

8. The petitioner is a sole accused. On the complaint lodged by

P.W.1, the respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.492 of 2015, for the

offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(i) of IPC and Section 4

of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. After

completion of investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the

same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.1784 of 2015 by the Trial

Court. The prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.10. P.W.1 is the

victim and her husband was examined as P.W.2. On 16.05.2015, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.R.C.No.15 of 2018

petitioner visited the victim's shop and asked her water packet and plastic

tumbler. The victim told that both were not available in her shop. Then,

the petitioner scolded her in filthy language. When it was questioned by

P.W.2, the petitioner threatened that he will remove his dress and he will

stand nudely in the road in front of their shop. He also scolded them in

filthy language. According to P.W.1, she lodged a complaint on the same

day. However, it was not accepted and no FIR was registered. While

being so, again on 18.05.2015, the petitioner went to the shop of the

victim and scolded her in filthy language in public. He also removed his

inner wear and stood nudely in front of their shop. It was seen by P.W.3

and P.W.4. P.W.2 is the husband of P.W.1. He was also present at the

time of occurrence. P.W.3 and P.W.4 deposed cogently and corroborated

each other. Though, they deposed that they had seen the occurrence in

their chief examination, in the cross examination, they deposed that they

heard about the occurrence. Though they deposed as ear-say witnesses,

there was occurrence on 18.05.2015. Even according to P.W.1, she had

lodged a complaint on 16.05.2015, the same was not taken by the

respondent and no FIR was registered. Again, on 18.05.2015, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.R.C.No.15 of 2018

petitioner went to the shop of P.W.1 and scolded her in filthy language.

Therefore, the non registration of FIR or non receipt of the complaint for

the occurrence took place on 16.05.2015 has nothing to do with the

subsequent occurrence which was taken place on 18.05.2015. Therefore,

both the Courts below rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence

punishable under Section 294(b) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu

Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Both the Courts below rightly

acquitted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 506(i) of

IPC, since even according to the prosecution, the petitioner never

threatened P.W.1 with dire consequences.

9. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the

orders passed by the Courts below. However, insofar as the sentence is

concerned, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody

on the date of occurrence viz, 18.05.2015, he was incarcerated and

imprisoned for quite reasonable time. Subsequently, he was released on

bail.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.R.C.No.15 of 2018

10. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court

feels that it would be appropriate to modify the sentence alone, imposed

by the Courts below, for the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu

Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Accordingly, the sentence for

the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of

Women Act, which was imposed by the Courts below to undergo one year

simple imprisonment, is reduced to the effect that the period which was

already undergone by the petitioner would remain as the sentence and the

petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand

only) to the Trial Court, in default, the petitioner shall undergo one month

simple imprisonment. The victim is permitted to withdraw the fine

amount paid by the petitioner before the Trial Court, by filing an

appropriate application before the Court below, in the manner known to

law.

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision case is partly allowed.

10.10.2022 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mn

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.R.C.No.15 of 2018

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J

mn

To

1. The XIX Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.

2. The V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai.

3. The Sub-Inspector of Police, K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station, Chennai.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Crl.R.C.No.15 of 2018

10.10.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis