Madras High Court
Anand vs State Rep. By on 2 March, 2023
Crl.R.C.No.1407 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.R.C.No.1407 of 2017
Anand ... Petitioner
vs.
State Rep. by
Inspector of Police,
All Womens Police Station, Chidambaram,
Chidambaram,
Cuddalore District.
(Crime No.5 of 2012) ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to call for records pertaining to the judgment dated
03.10.2017 passed in C.A.No.17of 2017 on the file of the learned II Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram confirming the judgment dated
15.02.2017 passed in C.C.No.16 of 2013 on the file District Munsif-cum-Judicial
Magistrate, Potonovo and set aside the same by allowing the above revision.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.T.Raja for
M/s.G.S.Dhanalakshmi
For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran
Government Advocate
(Criminal Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 10
Crl.R.C.No.1407 of 2017
ORDER
This Criminal Revision case has been filed against the judgment and order
passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram in
Crl.A.No.17 of 2017, dated 03.10.2017, confirming the judgment and order
passed by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Portonovo in C.C.No.16
of 2013, dated 15.02.217, convicting the petitioner for offence under Section 417
of IPC and sentencing him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay
a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) and in default to undergo two
months simple imprisonment and also to pay compensation of a sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the victim girl.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the victim girl
(PW1) had an affair and the petitioner seems to have had physical intercourse
with PW1 on a regular basis on the promise that he will marry her. The further
case of the prosecution is that the victim girl also conceived twice and it was
aborted. Ultimately, when the victim girl was insisting the petitioner to marry her,
the petitioner is said to have evaded the victim girl and had abused her in filthy
language. As a result, the victim girl is said to have attempted to commit suicide
by consuming pesticide.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1407 of 2017
3.The complaint (Ex.P1) was given by the victim girl on 21.05.2012 and
based on the same, an FIR (Ex.P6) came to be registered. The investigation was
taken up by PW10 and he prepared the Observation Mahazer and the Rough
Sketch, which were marked as Ex.P2 and Ex.P7 respectively. PW10 also recorded
the statements of the witnesses under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C.
4.The victim girl was referred to PW8 Doctor and the report submitted by
the Doctor was marked as Ex.P2. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to
judicial custody and he was also referred for medical examination to PW6. The
report given by PW6 was marked as Ex.P3.
5.Ultimately, on completion of the investigation, the final report was filed
before the Trial Court. The trial Court framed charges against the petitioner for
offence under Section 417 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and
marked Exs.P1 to P7. The incriminating evidence that was gathered in the course
of trial was put to the petitioner while he was questioned under 313 (1)(b) of
Cr.P.C., and he denied the same as false.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1407 of 2017
6.The Trial Court on appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, found that prosecution has
proved the case beyond reasonable doubts as against the petitioner for offence
under Section 417 of IPC and accordingly, sentenced the petitioner. The petitioner
was acquitted from the charge under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act.
7.Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, the
petitioner filed an appeal and the same was taken on file in Crl.A.No.17 of 2017
by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram. The Appellate
Court reappreciated the evidence and also took into consideration the findings of
the trial Court and found that there was no ground to interfere with the judgment
of the Trial Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal was dismissed by judgment
and order dated 03.10.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal revision
case has been filed before this Court.
8.When the case was taken up for final hearing, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, there was a
compromise between the petitioner and the victim girl (PW1) and accordingly, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1407 of 2017
petitioner paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) by way of
Demand Draft. On receiving the same, the victim girl also gave a statement before
the respondent police to the effect that the matter has been compromised between
the parties and that the criminal case can be closed.
9.When the matter was taken up for hearing, Tmt.S.Vanaja, Inspector of
Police and Ms.M.Thirupurasundari, Grade-I Police Constable (1888), All Women
Police Station, Chidambaram were present before this Court.
10.The learned Government Advocate on instructions from the concerned
Police Officers submitted that the victim girl had given a statement before the
police and the statement that was given was also produced before this Court. The
Officer, who was present stated that the matter has been compromised between
the parties and that the victim girl does not want to prosecute the case.
11.This Court has carefully considered the subsequent development that
has been taken place in this case and also the materials available on record.
12.This Court carefully went through the evidence of PW1. On considering
the evidence of PW1, both the Courts below have concurrently held that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1407 of 2017
petitioner had mislead the victim girl by giving a false promise that he will marry
her and was repeatedly having sexual intercourse with PW1. In fact, the victim
conceived twice and it was also aborted. The Court below also took into
consideration the fact that the victim girl, on realising that the petitioner had
cheated her, went to the extent of consuming pesticide to take away her life.
13.The evidence of PW1 is very natural and both the Courts below have
properly appreciated the evidence of the victim girl. In a case of this nature, it is
not necessary for the Court to go in search of any corroboration and if the
evidence of the victim girl is found to be reliable, that by itself can be a ground to
convict the accused person. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 only
insist upon the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence.
Hence, even a solitary witness whose evidence is found to be reliable and more
particularly in the case of sexual abuse, the Court can act upon that evidence and
proceed to deal with the accused persons. Hence, both the Courts below were
perfectly right in appreciating the evidence of PW1 and coming to a conclusion
that the petitioner had cheated the victim girl with a false promise to marry and
had regular physical intercourse.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1407 of 2017
14.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the victim girl has
compromised the dispute with the petitioner and has received the compensation of
a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) from the petitioner. Therefore,
the learned counsel sought for compounding of the offence. On carefully reading
Section 320 of Cr.P.C., it is seen that the offence of cheating under Section 417
IPC can be compounded, if the person/victim, who was cheated is willing to
compound the same. In the present case, the compounding has taken place at the
stage of criminal revision. When it comes to sexual offence as against women,
Courts must be very slow to compound the offence, since the victim by shear
frustration can come forward to compound the offence. However, the Court must
be very careful and ensure that the substantial justice is done to the victim girl. If
compounding of offence in cases of this nature is done leniently, it will send a
wrong message to the society.
15.In the light of the above discussion, this Court confirms the conviction
imposed against the petitioner for offence under Section 417 of I.P.C. However,
considering the subsequent development, this Court is inclined to modify the
sentence. For an offence under Section 417 of IPC, the punishment that is
provided is imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or
with both. Therefore, imprisonment need not be mandatorily imposed and it can
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1407 of 2017
be balanced by directing payment of more compensation by the petitioner to the
victim girl. In view of the same, the sentence imposed by the Trial Court and
confirmed by the Appellate Court is modified as follows:
The petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand
only) and in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment. The petitioner
is further directed to pay compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakhs only) to the victim girl (PW1) and in default to undergo three months
simple imprisonment. The Apex Court has held in Vijayan vs. Sadanandan K.
and another reported in 2009 3 CTC 786 that a default sentence can be imposed
for non-payment of compensation. Taking note of the same, the default sentence
is imposed by this Court if the petitioner fails to pay the compensation amount to
the victim girl (PW1).
16.The petitioner has already deposited fine amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees
One Thousand only) and the same is evident from the suspension of sentence
order passed by this Court on 10.11.2017. The petitioner has also paid a sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the victim girl (PW1) by way of
Demand Draft, dated 18.02.2023. A copy of the Demand Draft was also produced
before this Court. What remains to be paid is only the balance compensation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1407 of 2017
amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) by the petitioner to the
victim girl (PW1). This amount shall be paid by the petitioner to the victim girl
(PW1) on or before 13.04.2023. The respondent police shall ensure that this
amount is paid by the petitioner to the victim girl within the time stipulated by
this Court. If the petitioner fails to pay the balance compensation amount of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), within the time stipulated by this
Court, the respondent police shall take immediate steps to move the Trial Court in
order to make the petitioner undergo the default sentence imposed by this Court.
17.In the result, this Criminal Revision case is partly allowed in the above
terms and to that extent, the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court as
confirmed by the Appellate Court is modified with regard to the sentence alone.
02.03.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
ssr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1407 of 2017
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
ssr
To
1.The II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Chidambaram.
2.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,
Potonovo.
3.The Inspector of Police,
All Womens Police Station, Chidambaram,
Chidambaram,
Cuddalore District.
Crl.R.C.No.1407 of 2017
02.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
