Madras High Court
Sandeep Sharma vs The State Represented By on 12 February, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.R.C.No.841 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.841 of 2021
and Crl.M.P.Nos.12879 & 12882 of 2021
Sandeep Sharma ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Central Railway Police Station,
Central, Chennai – 600 003.
Crime No.242 of 2014. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of
Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside conviction and sentence made in
C.A.No.55 of 2020 dated 03.09.2021 on the file of the Principal Sessions
Judge, Chennai in confirming the judgment made in C.C.No.3081 of 2014
dated 13.02.2020 on the file of the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George
Town, Chennai.
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.841 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthi
for Mr.Mahamani
For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The petitioner/accused was convicted by the learned XVI
Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in C.C.No.3081 of 2014
by judgment dated 13.02.2020 and sentenced to undergo one month simple
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo one
month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. Aggrieved against the same, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court in C.A.No.55 of
2020. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai dismissed the appeal
by judgment dated 03.09.2021 confirming the conviction and sentence of
the Trial Court. Against which, the present revision is filed.
2.The case against the petitioner is that the defacto
complainant/P.W.1 lodged a complaint stating that on 28.03.2014 she
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
travelled in Tamil Nadu Express from Chennai to New Delhi to attend a
examination in AIIMS at New Delhi, she purchased an open ticket [Ticket
No.492449803] and was searching for a vacant seat in the reserved
compartment. Thereafter, she approached the Travelling Ticket Examiner
[TTE], the petitioner/accused herein for accommodation, who advised her to
get into Coach No.S9 and the train started at 10.00 p.m. After finishing his
ticket checking work, the petitioner directed the defacto complainant to wait
at Berth No.10 in Coach No.S8 and later she was asked to sit in berth No.32.
When the defacto complainant shifted her luggage to berth No.32, the
petitioner/accused called the defacto complainant in her Mobile
No.9543006787 from his mobile No.8008745285 on the pretext of allotting
a berth. When the defacto complainant went to brush her teeth and wash her
face, the petitioner approached her in plain clothes with yellow t-shirt,
introduced himself by his name and he is a Swimming Champion aged about
22 years. When the defacto complainant asked for the additional charges to
be paid, the petitioner called her to come near the toilet, forced her to the
toilet, he shut her mouth in one hand, pulled her inside with another hand
and attempted to embrace her and zipped out his private parts. The defacto
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
complainant punched him on his face and shouted at him, the co-passenger
Rajaram, a retired Police Officer who was travelling along with his wife and
daughter enquired the defacto complainant, she informed the harassment but
not the full story. There were other two passengers, namely, Ganesh and
Prasanna from Tamil Nadu Police, became suspicious on the frequent visit
of TTE near the defacto complainant’s seat and chatting with her. Later, the
petitioner alighted at Vijayawada Station and thereafter, the train proceeded
to Delhi. The defacto complainant stayed with the said Rajaram and his
family at Delhi, attended the examination and later returned to Chennai on
02.04.2014 and left to her native at Arupukkottai on the same day. The
defacto complainant informed to her senior about the incident, who advised
her to lodge a complaint and thereafter, the above complaint lodged.
3.During trial, P.W.1 to P.W.3 examined, Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Ex.C1 and
Ex.C2 marked. The trial Court on conclusion of trial found the petitioner
guilty and convicted him as stated above. The Lower Appellate Court
confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
defacto complainant travelled with an open ticket to Delhi in a reserved
compartment and hence, the petitioner warned her and forced her to get
down in the next Station. She pleaded for a reserved seat and she was asked
to sit in a vacant berth and penalty was collected. The defacto complainant,
a Law Student raised objection for imposing penalty, she abused and
threatened the petitioner and a false case has been foisted against the
petitioner. Admittedly, the occurrence is said to have taken place on
28.03.2014 but the complaint was lodged only on 08.04.2014. He would
submit that after the petitioner got alighted at Vijayawada, another TTE took
charge from Vijayawada but the defacto complainant not complained to the
new TTE about the incident either in the train or after getting down at New
Delhi. Further, she confirms she stayed with the co-passenger Rajaram and
his family at Delhi, it was the daughter of Rajaram who accompanied her to
AIIMS Centre and other places in Delhi but the defacto complainant not
whispered anything about the incident to the said Rajaram’s family but
gives an explanation that on the advise of her mother and senior, she lodged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the complaint. Further, the defacto complainant not stated anything in the
complaint about the petitioner forcing her to the toilet and exhibiting his
private parts. The Trial Court finding that the defacto complainant had
given an exaggerated version disbelieved her evidence on this aspect. He
would further submit that the Trial Court when disbelieving the evidence of
P.W.1/victim that she had given an exaggerated version ought to have
disbelieved her in total. Further the defacto complainant not thought fit to
make any complaint from 28.03.2014 till 08.04.2014 and in her complaint,
the defacto complainant also stated, when she was travelling in a bus on
27.03.2014 during midnight, she suffered humiliation of similar nature.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in this
case, one Suresh who was examined as P.W.2 is said to have travelled in the
same compartment on the same day and the petitioner being a TTE asked
him to sit in a corner since he was travelling with an open ticket in a
reserved compartment. P.W.2 is doing suitcase repair work next to the
Railway Police Station and identifies the petitioner. Finding that P.W.2 is in
the nature of stock witness, his evidence was not accepted by the Trial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Court. P.W.3/Investigating Officer states that initially complaint was
forwarded to him by the Inspector of Police, thereafter he took up the
investigation, recorded the statement of witnesses and filed a final report.
P.W.3 fairly submitted that in this case he had not collected the travel details
of the co-passengers, namely, Rajaram and his family, two Police
Personnels namely Ganesh and Prasanna. Further, he had not collected the
call details of the petitioner and the defacto complainant to confirm that the
petitioner called the defacto complainant over phone and forced her to come
near the toilet. The Trial Court finding that the investigation not conducted
in a proper manner and no materials collected, directed the respondent
police to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. by
order dated 19.12.2019. Thereafter, the respondent issued summons to the
defacto complainant/P.W.1 on 07.01.2020. She appeared on 23.01.2020
and informed that she had already given statement earlier which is sufficient
and she has nothing to add. The respondent police written a letter to the
Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railways seeking for
travel details of Ganesh Murugan, Rajamani, Prasanakumar and Shanthi.
The Divisional Commercial Manager gave a report that backup data upto
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3½ years will be available and no data can be retrieved beyond that period.
Hence no details furnished.
6.The learned counsel further submitted that P.W.1 clearly stated that
during her stay in Delhi, she stayed with Rajaram and his family, his
daughter accompanied the defacto complainant throughout her stay at Delhi.
In such circumstances, finding out the address of the said Rajaram and the
details of his daughter is not a difficult task. Further, for the summons dated
07.01.2020, the defacto complainant makes an endorsement, that she is
pursuing her LLM Human Rights and Duties Education at School of
Excellence in Law. In the year 2014 the defacto complainant claims that
she is a Law student and even after six years, she claim that she is a Law
student. She has been giving different address at different point of time
which is of concern and the credibility of the defacto complainant is
doubtful. The defacto complainant to brook vengeance for the alleged
humiliation caused due to the petitioner questioning her for travelling with
an open ticket in a reserved compartment and imposing penalty made her to
lodge a false complaint. Further, except for the evidence of P.W.1 there is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
no other corroborative material in this case. The Trial Court having
disbelieved one part of P.W.1’s evidence ought to have totally disbelieved
P.W.1. The Trial Court found P.W.2’s evidence totally unbelievable and he
is in the nature of stock witness. The investigation of P.W.3 is not proper
and hence ought to have acquitted the petitioner from all charges. The
Lower Appellate Court without independent assessment and appreciation
had mechanically dismissed the appeal. Hence, prayed for acquittal.
7.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) filed his counter and
submitted that the petitioner/accused is a Travelling Ticket Examiner. On
28.03.2014 he was on duty for Coach Nos.S8, S9 and S10 in Tamil Nadu
Express. The defacto complainant purchased open ticket, searched for
accommodation in the reserved compartment and she approached the
petitioner for allotment of a berth in the reserved compartment. The defacto
complainant directed her to enter Coach No.S9 and later she was asked to sit
at berth No.32 in Coach No.S8, at that time, the petitioner got her mobile
number. Later, the petitioner called the defacto complainant to collect the
amount, took her near the toilet and attempted to embrace her. The defacto
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
complainant punched him on his face and shouted at him. Thereafter, when
enquired by the co-passenger Rajaram, she informed the harassment caused
by the petitioner and not giving the receipt for allotting the berth. A
co-passenger Rajaram shouted at the petitioner and asked him to give her
the receipt. The defacto complainant not disclosed the misbehaviour of the
petitioner felt if revealed would only further embarrass her and hence, she
had not disclosed the entire facts. After coming to her native, she disclosed
to her mother about the incident and later to her Senior, who advised her to
lodge a complaint. Hence, she lodged a complaint on 08.04.2014. This is a
natural behaviour of a humiliated women. On receipt of the complaint, FIR
registered, investigation carried out by P.W.3, who examined P.W.2/Co-
passenger who travelled in the same compartment. On completion of
investigation, charge sheet filed. The defacto complainant was initially
hesitant to co-operate with the investigation and she was reluctant to give
all details which caused some delay. During the trial, the Trial Court found
that the co-passengers not examined despite their names found in the
complaint and ordered further investigation, the co-passenger details could
not be collected due to passage of time. Hence with the available evidence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of P.W.1 to P.W.3, Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Ex.C1 and Ex.C2, the Trial Court
convicted the petitioner, confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. Hence,
prayed for dismissal of the petition.
8.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials,
it is seen that in this case the petitioner is a Travelling Ticket Examiner, who
was on duty in Tamil Nadu Express on 28.03.2014. P.W.1/defacto
complainant admits that she travelled with an open ticket to New Delhi and
she was in search for a berth. The petitioner is said to have initially guided
her to Coach No.S9 and later she was asked to sit in berth No.32 in Coach
No.S8 where one Rajaram, a retired Police Officer travelled along with his
family and two Police Personnels also travelled. The petitioner is said to
have not collected additional charges immediately and thereafter for
collecting additional charges, the defacto complainant called P.W.1 near the
toilet, at that time, the petitioner is said to have misbehaved with her. The
Trial Court disbelieved one portion of the evidence of P.W.1 found to be an
exaggerated version as though the petitioner exposed his private parts to
her. The other version of the petitioner is that the petitioner closed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
defacto complainant’s mouth by one hand and pulled her inside the toilet by
other hand is also highly doubtful. The defacto complainant after the
incident had gone back to her berth and complained about not giving receipt
for additional charges collected and the co-passenger Rajaram, who is said
to have shouted at the petitioner and asked him to issue the receipt
immediately and nothing more. Further, the defacto complainant stated that
the said Rajaram and his daughter became friendly with her and Rajaram’s
daughter accompanied her in Delhi. In such circumstances, it is natural that
the defacto complainant to have revealed the misbehaviour and humiliation
at the hands of the petitioner but strangely she kept quite till 08.04.2014 and
later, she lodged a complaint. Apart from it, the petitioner is said to have
alighted in Vijayawada station, thereafter another TTE took charge and the
train travels for more than 24 hours to reach Delhi but during this period the
defacto complainant not disclosed about the incident to any of the co-
passengers or to the railway officials. In this case the co-passengers are
Police Personnels, hence it would have given confidence and strength for
the defacto complainant to lodge a complaint or disclose the fact but
strangely the defacto complainant not disclosed the incident till 08.04.2014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
which causes doubt in the defacto complainant’s version about the incident.
The reason given by her that it would affect her exams on 30.03.2014 may
not be proper. In this case the travel ticket of neither the defacto
complainant nor the co-passengers collected. Further, the call details of the
petitioner and the defacto complainant would give a link to the fact that the
petitioner had called her often, caused harassment and also asked her to
come near toilet. But in this case, no such steps taken.. The Trial Court
ordered further investigation, thereafter to nothing could be collected. It is
not in dispute that the defacto complainant travelled with an open ticket and
the petitioner being a TTE naturally could have questioned her which would
have caused her embarrassment that too in front of others which can be a
reason for the complaint. Further, the only evidence is that of P.W.1 and her
evidence from the stage of complaint, her statement during investigation and
before the Court are with exaggeration, does not inspire confidence to act on
the sole territory of the defacto complainant, hence in the absence of any
corroborative evidence and materials, it cannot be taken as proved. Hence,
this Court finds the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court,
confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court both not sustainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9.Accordingly, the judgment rendered by the learned XVI
Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in C.C.No.3081 of 2014
dated 13.02.2020, confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Chennai in C.A.No.55 of 2020 dated 03.09.2021 both set aside. The
petitioner is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him.
10.In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition stands allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
12.02.2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
cse
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Central Railway Police Station,
Central, Chennai – 600 003.
2.The Principal Sessions Judge,
Chennai.
3.The XVI Metropolitan Magistrate,
George Town,
Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse
12.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
