Madras High Court
Aiyappan vs The State Represented By on 19 October, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.990 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.No.990 of 2018
and Crl.M.P.Nos.11572 and 11573 of 2018
Aiyappan ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State represented by
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
H-3, Tondiarpet Police Station,
Chennai-600 081.
(Crime No.421 of 2009) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Cr.P.C to call for the records in CA.No.76 of 2014 on the file of the learned V
Additional Session Judge's Court, Chennai and set aside the judgment dated
11.08.2018 passed thereon and thereby set aside the Judgment dated 20.02.2014
passed in C.C.No.3742 of 2009 by the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate
Court, G.T., Chennai and consequently acquit the petitioner/Appellant/Accused.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.K.Mohan Vel
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 7
Crl.R.C.No.990 of 2018
ORDER
This Criminal Revision case has been filed as against the order passed in
CA.No.76 of 2014 dated 11.08.2018, thereby confirmed the conviction passed by
the Trial Court and modified the sentence imposed in C.C.No.3742 of 2009
dated 20.02.2014 passed by the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
George Town, Chennai.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim is a minor girl aged about
18 years. She has been residing at 'I'Block, No.624, 4th Floor of Tsunami Quarters
along with her parents. The accused was also residing in the same block at
Quarters No.601, which is a floor below to the victim's house. While being so, on
06.08.2009, at about 4.30.p.m., the victim was on her way down in the staircase
to help her mother who is running a tiffin shop on the ground floor. When she
was crossing the Quarters No.601 of the accused, he pulled her skirt and hugged
her forcibly. Immediately, she raised an alarm and fell unconscious. The defacto
complainant and another came to rescue the victim. Thereafter, the accused ran
away from that place. On receipt of the said complaint, the respondent registered
an FIR in Crime No.421 of 2009 for the offence punishable under 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.990 of 2018
cognizance in C.C.No.3742 of 2009 by the Trial Court.
3. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and
Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 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 and convicted him for the
offence punishable under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of
Women Act and sentenced him to undergo three months simple imprisonment and
also awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo one
month simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an
appeal and the same was partly allowed, thereby modified the sentence alone and
reduced to one month and also to pay compulsory fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default,
he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days along with the
compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
4. The petitioner raised grounds that the evidence of P.W.1 revealed that
the place of occurrence, consisted of 4 floors with 6 tenements each, aggregating
in all 24 tenements. However, none of the tenements, who were eye witnesses to
the occurrence, were examined by the prosecution. Instead of examining the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.990 of 2018
tenements, who were resident of the place of occurrence, the prosecution
examined P.W.3 who is a resident of a far away place. In fact, P.W.1 who is the
victim, deposed that she did not know what was written in Ex.P1 complaint.
There are contradictions between the statement recorded under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C and the deposition. However, the Courts below convicted the petitioner
for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The case is pending for the past 4 years. Though, the revision was
admitted by this Court, the suspension of sentence is not ordered even till today.
Even then, the petitioner failed to surrender and did not take any steps to suspend
the sentence imposed by the Courts below.
7. A perusal of records revealed that the victim was examined as P.W.1.
She categorically deposed that she was getting down to help her mother who is
running a tiffin shop on the ground floor of their house. While crossing the
accused house at Quarters No.601, suddenly, the accused pulled her skirt and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.990 of 2018
hugged her. Therefore, she shouted and fainted there itself. Immediately, P.W.2
and P.W.3 came to rescue her and they rescued her from the petitioner.
Thereafter, the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. The victim's
mother was examined as P.W.2 and she also deposed and reiterated the evidence
of P.W.1. P.W.3, who is the neighbour, when she visited the building in which the
victim and the accused were residing, to see one Saroja, the occurrence had
taken place and she heard the alarm from the victim. Immediately, she went to
the place of occurrence and had seen the accused hugging her and the victim
shouting. After seeing P.W.2 and P.W.3, the accused ran away from the place of
occurrence. Thereafter, the victim fainted. Immediately, the complaint was lodged
and the same was registered in Crime No.421 of 2009 for the offence punishable
under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Even in
the cross examination, nothing was elicited by the petitioner to disprove the case
of the prosecution.
8. Therefore, both the Courts below rightly found the petitioner guilty for
the offence punishable under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment
of Women Act. However, the first Appellate Court reduced the sentence to one
month simple imprisonment. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.990 of 2018
the orders passed by the Courts below and this revision is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision case stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
19.10.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
mn
To
1. The V Additional Session Judge's Court, Chennai.
2. The XV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, G.T., Chennai.
3.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
H-3, Tondiarpet Police Station,
Chennai-600 081.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.990 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
mn
Crl.R.C.No.990 of 2018
and Crl.M.P.Nos.11572 and 11573 of 2018
19.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
