Madras High Court
Ramaraja vs The Inspector Of Police on 6 June, 2023
Crl.R.C(MD)No.664 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.664 of 2018
Ramaraja ... Petitioner/Appellant/
Accused
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Pappakudi Police Station,
Tirunelveli.
In Crime No.24 of 2012. ... Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and the judgment
of conviction and sentence passed in Crl.A.No.90 of 2017 dated
16.11.2018 by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tenkasi, by
modifying the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.
135 of 2017 dated 23.11.2017 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Alangulam.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sivabalan
For Respondent : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
ORDER
The Revision has been filed to set aside the the judgment passed
by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tenkasi, in
Crl.A.No.90 of 2017, dated 16.11.2018, by modifying the order of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.664 of 2018
conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Alangulam, in C.C.No.135 of 2017 dated 23.11.2017.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 29.01.2012, at about
01.00 a.m, the victim and her husband were sleeping in their house, the
accused trespassed into the house through back door and pulled the
victim's hand in order to misbehave with her. Hence, the complaint.
3.On the complaint, the respondent registered an F.I.R in
Crime No.24 of 2012 for the offence under Section 354 of IPC r/w 4 of
TNPWH Act. After completion of the investigation, they filed a final
report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam, and the same
has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.135 of 2017 for the offences under
Sections 354, 448 of I.P.C and Section 4 of TNPWH Act.
4.On the side of the prosecution, they had examined P.W.1 to
P.W.7 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and on the side of the accused, no one
was examined and no document was marked.
5.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial
Court found the petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections 354 and
448 of I.P.C. For the offence under Section 354 of IPC, he was sentenced
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.664 of 2018
to undergo 2 years Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment. For the offence
under Section 448 of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo 3 months Simple
Imprisonment.
6.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal
in C.A.No.90 of 2017 before the Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Tenkasi. The Appellate Court also confirmed the order of conviction and
modified the sentence by reducing the same from 2 years Simple
Imprisonment to 1 year Simple Imprisonment for the offence under
Section 354 of IPC. Hence, the petition.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there
are contradiction between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The victim
was examined as P.W.1 and her husband was examined as P.W.2. Even
according to P.W.1, she categorically admitted that there was no
electricity in her house. The occurrence was taken place at about
01.00 a.m on 30.01.2012. Only after the petitioner pulling her hand, she
switched on the battery light and identified the petitioner herein. On the
Torch Light, P.W.2, her husband also identified the petitioner. Whereas,
in the cross-examination of P.W.2, he categorically deposed that only on
the information given by P.W.1, he came and identified the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.664 of 2018
Further, there was 10 hours of delay in lodging the complaint. The
occurrence took place at 01.00 a.m on 30.01.2012. Whereas, the
complaint was lodged only at 11.00 a.m. Absolutely, there was no
explanation on the side of the prosecution for the delay of 10 hours in
lodgment of FIR. Except P.W.1 and P.W.2, no other witnesses had
supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.2 examined as eye-witness
and he turned hostile and failed to support the case of the prosecution.
He further submitted that there was previous enmity between P.W.1 &
P.W.2 and the petitioner herein with regard to land. The prosecution also
failed to prove the intention in order to attract the offence under Section
354 of IPC. Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 mechanically had spoken that the
petitioner trespassed into their house through the back door only and ran
away through the front door. Whereas, P.W.2 in his cross-examination
stated that he had ran away through the back door of the house.
Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond any doubt and
prayed for acquittal from all the charges.
8.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal
Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that P.W.1 and P.W.2's
evidence is the best evidence and P.W.1 categorically deposed that the
petitioner trespassed into the house and pulled her hand in order to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.664 of 2018
misbehave with her. The evidence of P.W.1 also corroborated the
evidence of P.W.2. The delay of 10 hours in lodgment of FIR is not a
matter for the case like misbehave with women. Hence, both the Courts
below rightly convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections
354 and 448 of I.P.C. Hence, it does not require any interference and
prayed for dismissal of this petition.
9.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
10.It is seen that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the wife and husband.
While they were sleeping in their house on 29.01.2012, at about 01.00
a.m, the petitioner trespassed into their house through the back door
entry. He pulled P.W.1's hands in order to misbehave with her. At that
juncture, both were woke up and on the Torch Light, P.W.1 identified the
petitioner as her neighbour. Thereafter, he ran away from the house
through the back door of the house. Whereas, in cross-examination,
P.W.2 deposed that after the occurrence, the petitioner ran away from the
house through the front door. Further, a small contradiction between
P.W.1 and P.W.2 would not affect the case of the prosecution. Since the
petitioner is a neighbour to P.W.1 and P.W.2, they can easily identified
the petitioner. Further, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.664 of 2018
rightly pointed out that the victim's evidence is the best evidence and it is
also corroborated and supported by cogent evidence of P.W.2. Therefore,
this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the
Courts below.
11.However, considering the age of the petitioner and the
gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner and also considering
the incarceration period of 56 days, this Court is inclined to reduce the
sentence alone for the offences under Sections 354 and 448 of IPC.
12.In view of the above, though the conviction passed by the
trial Court for the offences under Sections 354 and 448 of IPC is hereby
confirmed, sentence of 1 year Simple Imprisonment for the offence under
Section 354 of IPC and sentence of 3 months Simple Imprisonment for
the offence under Section 448 of IPC are reduced to the period, which
was already undergone by the petitioner.
13.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is partly
allowed
06.06.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
dss
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.664 of 2018
To
1.The Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Tenkasi.
2.The learned Judicial Magistrate,
Alangulam.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Pappakudi Police Station,
Tirunelveli.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.664 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
dss
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.664 of 2018
06.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
