Madras High Court
Santhosh Kumar vs The State Represented on 9 September, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09/09/2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.820 of 2022
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.10203 of 2022
Santhosh Kumar : Petitioner/Appellant/
Accused (Sole)
Vs.
The State represented
The Inspector of Police,
Thiruvaiyaru Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.187 of 2014) : Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Revision has bee filed under
Sections 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, against
the judgment, dated 30/06/2022 made in CA No.89 of 2021
on the file of the learned Mahalir Neethimandram, Fast
Track Mahila Court, Thanjavur, confirming the judgment,
dated 17/05/2021 passed in CC No.150 of 2014 on the file
of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaur, Thanjavur.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.L.Dhilipan Pandian
For Respondent : Mr.RMS.Sethuraman
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
O R D E R
This Criminal Revision has been preferred against
the judgment of the appellate court namely Mahalir
Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Thanjavur, in CA
No.89 of 2021, dated 03/06/2022, confirming the judgment
of the trial court namely the Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruvaiyaru, in CC No.150 of 2014, dated 17/05/2021.
2.The facts in brief:-
The petitioner was arrayed as sole accused in
Crime No.187 of 2014 and he was tried in CC No.150 of
2014 by the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru, Thanjavur.
The allegation against the petitioner is that on
28/08/2014 at about 07.00 am, the de-facto complainant
went to the house of one Raghupathy for demanding back
the loan amount. At that time, the above said Raghupathy
was not in the house. So the de-facto complainant
enquired the accused. At that time, the accused person
abused her in filthy language, pushed her down by holding
her hair and caused assault with wooden log on the left
thigh region. She was also criminally intimidated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The petitioner was tried for the offences under
sections 294(b), 324, 506(ii) IPC and section 4 of the
Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.
4.To prove the charges, on the side of the
prosecution, 9 witnesses have been examined and 7
documents were marked. On the side of the accused, no
oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
5.At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court
found that the offences under section 323 IPC and section
4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act,
2002 were found to be proved. On that ground, he was
convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 months rigorous
imprisonment for the offence under section 323 IPC and
one year rigorous imprisonment, apart from that, Rs.
10,000/- was also imposed as fine for the offence under
section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women
Harassment Act, 2002. Challenging the conviction and
sentence, he filed an appeal and that was heard by the
Mahilar Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court),
Thanjavur, in CA No.89 of 2021. The appellate court found
that there is no reason to interfere into the order of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the trial court and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed
by confirming the conviction and sentence of the trial
court. Against the concurrent findings of both the courts
below, this criminal revision has been filed.
6.Even though, this revision has been preferred on
factual and legal aspects, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner would submit that the fine amount may
be confirmed, but however, the sentence may be modified
to the period that was already undergone by the
petitioner.
7.It is seen that considering the nature of the
injury suffered by the de-facto complainant, as stated
above, the revision petitioner was convicted for the
offence under section 323 IPC. PW1 is the injured, has
stated that she was assaulted with stick on the left
thigh region. PW5, the Doctor, who treated PW1 has
stated that on examination, he found contusion measuring
about 10 x 5 cm on the left thigh region and no other
injuries were found. He would further say that the injury
sustained by PW1 is simple in nature.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.So considering the nature of the injury, that
has been suffered by PW1, I am of the considered view
that the sentence imposed upon the petitioner can be
modified.
9.It is seen from the records that the petitioner
is in custody for the past 105 days. Taking into account
for determining the quantum of sentence and the accused
served substantive part of sentence, it is held that the
sentence imposed on the petitioner/accused can be reduced
the sentence to the period already undergone under both
penal provisions.
10.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is partly
allowed, by reducing the sentence awarded to the
petitioner/accused to the sentence already undergone by
him. In respect of fine amount, the findings of the trial
court is confirmed. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
09.09.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To,
1.The Mahalir Neethimandram,
(Fast Track Mahila Court),
Thanjavur District.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruvaiyaru,
Thanjavur District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Thiruvaiyaru Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ILANGOVAN,J
er
Order udgment made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.820 of 2022
09.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
