Velmurugan vs State Through Its Sub Inspector Of ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7050 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 7050 Mad
Judgement Date : 26 June, 2023

Madras High Court

Velmurugan vs State Through Its Sub Inspector Of ... on 26 June, 2023

                                                                             Crl.R.C.(MD)No.51 of 2019



                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                    Date : 26.06.2023
                                                       CORAM:

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                           Crl.R.C.(MD)No.51 of 2019


                     1.Velmurugan
                     2.Subbulaxmi
                     3.Baskaran                                             ... Petitioners


                                                             -Vs-


                     State through its Sub Inspector of Police,
                     Pudukottai Police Station,
                     Tuticorin District.                                    ... Respondent


                     PRAYER : This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section
                     397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment passed in C.A.No.134
                     of 2017 dated 21.12.2018 by the learned II and Additional Sessions
                     Judge, Tuticorin, confirming the judgment and sentence order passed in
                     C.C.No.1367 of 2017 dated 11.10.2017 on the file of the Judicial
                     Magistrate-III, Tuticorin and acquit the petitioners in the above cases.


                                  For Petitioners       : Mr.K.A.Ramakrishnan

                                  For Respondent       : Mr.K.Sanjai Ganhi
                                                         Government Advocate(Crl.Side)


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/7
                                                                                  Crl.R.C.(MD)No.51 of 2019



                                                        ORDER

This revision has been filed to set aside the judgment passed in

C.A.No.134 of 2017 dated 21.12.2018 by the learned II and Additional

Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, confirming the judgment and sentence order

passed in C.C.No.1367 of 2017 dated 11.10.2017 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate-III, Tuticorin and acquit the petitioners in the above

cases.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.02.2015, at about 01.00

p.m, when the defacto complainant and her husband while sleeping in

their house, the first accused knocked the back door of their house.

Thereafter, the defecto complainant came to the back door of the house

and the same was locked. She immediately came to the infront of the

house and she had seen that the first accused jumped over the compound

wall, immediately she informed the same with her husband. On the next

day, the defacto complainant's husband went to the first accused house, at

that time, the second and third accused scolded him in filthy language.

Thereafter, the case was registered in Crime No.50 of 2015 for the

offences punishable under Sections 448, 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC and

Section 4 of TNPWH Act.

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

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.51 of 2019

3. After completion of investigation, the final report was also filed

before the concerned Court and the same was taken cognizance. In order

to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, 7 witnesses were

examined as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and four documents were marked as Ex.P.1

to Ex.P4. On the side of the petitioner, no one was examined and no

documents were marked.

4. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court

found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 448

and 294(b) of IPC, to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo one

month simple imprisonment and the petitioners 2 and 3 are convicted

under Section 294(b) IPC with fine of Rs.500/- each in default of

payment of fine, the petitioners to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for a

period of one month. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners preferred

an appeal and the same was also dismissed by confirming the conviction

and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Hence, the present revision.

5. On 16.02.2015 at about 01.00 p.m, when the defacto

complainant/P.W.1 and her husband/P.W.2 while sleeping in their house,

the first accused knocked the back door of their house. Thereafter, the

defecto complainant came to the back door of the house and the same https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.51 of 2019

was locked. She immediately came to the infront of the house and she

had seen that the first accused jumped over the compound wall, she

informed the same with her husband. On the next day, the defacto

complainant's husband went to the first accused house, at that time, the

second and third accused scolded them in filthy language.

6. According to the prosecution, P.W.1 had seen that the first

petitioner was jumping in the compound wall. Therefore, he did not

trespassed to her house. Hence, the charges under Section 448 is not

made out against the first petitioner. Unfortunately, the charges under

Section 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC are concerned, according to the

prosecution P.W.1 and P.W.2 are went to the first petitioner's house and

questioning the about the act of the first petitioner. Thereafter only, the

other petitioners abused the defacto complainant and her husband in

filthy language and also threatened him with their consequence. Hence,

the alleged occurrence was occurred in the place of the first petitioner

house and not in the place of the public place. When the occurrence had

taken place in the public, the prosecution ought to have examined any

one of the independent witness for proving the charges under Section 4

of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and 294(b) of

IPC. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the provision under Section

294(b) of IPC, which reads as under:

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

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.51 of 2019

''294.Obscene acts and songs – Whoever, to the annoyance of others-

(a) does any obscene act in any public place or

(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.''

Admittedly, Section 294(b) of IPC is not attracted as against the

petitioner.

7.It is also relevant to rely upon the judgment of this Court

reported in 1996(1) CTC 470 in the case of K.Jeyaramanuju Vs.

Janakaraj & anr., which held as follows:-

''To prove the offence under Section 294, I.P.C. mere utterance of obscene words are not sufficient, but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in this case''.

8. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under

Section 294(b) of IPC. Hence, the charges under Section 294(b) and

506(ii) of IPC are not made out against these petitioners.

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

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.51 of 2019

9. The prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges as against

the petitioners and the entire conviction and sentence cannot be sustained

as against the petitioners and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the

conviction and sentence imposed by the both Courts below is set aside

and the petitioners are acquitted from all the charges. If any fine amount

already paid by the petitioners, the same shall be returned.

10.In the result, this criminal revision case is allowed.