Madras High Court
Manivasan vs The State Rep. By Its on 16 July, 2025
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.270 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.270 of 2023
Manivasan ... Petitioner
-vs-
The State Rep. By its,
The Inspector of Police,
Vattathikkottai Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.65 of 2018) ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Review Case filed under 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call
for the entire records relating to the judgment of the learned III Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur @ Pattukkottai, passed in C.A.No.
61 of 2021 dated 23.11.2022, confirming the conviction and sentence
passed by the Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Pattukkottai in C.C.No.
29 of 2020 dated 22.04.2021 and set aside the same by allowing the
present Criminal Revision Petition and acquit the petitioner/accused.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramasamy
For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj, Government Advocate (Crl.)
ORDER
Challenging the judgment of the learned III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Pudukottai, in Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2021 dated
23.11.2022, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 06:16:35 pm )
Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Pattukkottai, in C.C.No.29 of 2020
dated 22.04.2021, convicting the petitioner and imposing a fine of Rs.
500/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the
offence under Section 352 IPC, and sentencing him to one year simple
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo three
months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil
Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, this Criminal
Revision Case is filed.
2.The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.29 of 2020 on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court). The prosecution
case is that on 10.05.2018 at 08.00 a.m., when the defacto complainant
had gone to her poultry farm along with her husband, Saminathan, at
North Street, Kuruchi Village, within the jurisdiction of Vattathikottai
Police Station, due to a previous enmity over a land dispute, the accused
scolded her with filthy language, grabbed her hair and also attacked her
husband, Saminathan, threatening that he would not spare them, if they
frequented the area. On her complaint, the respondent police filed a final
report against the accused for offences under Sections 294(b), 352, 506 (i)
of IPC, and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of
Women Act, 2002. Originally, the charge sheet was presented before the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai, and taken on file on 09.10.2018
as C.C.No.289 of 2018. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 06:16:35 pm )
Fast Track Court, Pudukottai, renumbered on 21.01.2020 as C.C.No.29 of
2020 and upon the accused’s appearance copies were furnished to him free
of cost under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and on questioning, he pleaded not
guilty.
3.The learned Trial Court examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 on the
prosecution side and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. On being questioned under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating circumstances against him,
the accused denied the prosecution evidence and did not adduce any
defence evidence. After considering all documentary and oral evidence, the
learned Trial Court found the accused guilty under Section 352 of IPC and
Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002
and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 352 of IPC, in
default of which, the accused was to undergo one month simple
imprisonment, and sentenced him to one year simple imprisonment and a
fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, in default of which he was to
undergo three months simple imprisonment and thus, totalling a fine of
Rs.10,500/-. The learned Trial Court acquitted the accused of the offences
under Sections 294(b) and 506 (i) of IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 06:16:35 pm )
4.Aggrieved, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2021
before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur at
Pattukottai. By the impugned judgment dated 23.11.2022, the learned III
Additional District and Sessions Judge confirmed the learned Trial Court’s
conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. Challenging that
decision, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
defacto complainant (P.W.1) and her husband (P.W.2) are closely related to
the petitioner (the accused is the maternal uncle of P.W.1 and the brother
of P.W.2), and that a long-standing civil dispute over land between P.W.2
and the accused provided a false motive for the complaint. No injury was
substantiated by medical evidence and P.W.3, an eyewitness, turned
hostile and the learned Trial Court ought not to have convicted on the
basis of uncorroborated testimony. He further pointed out that the FIR was
registered after an inordinate delay of five days and urged that the period
of 20 days incarceration already suffered be set off against any sentence,
and that the entire fine of Rs.10,500/- has been paid.
6.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.) appearing for the
respondent on the other hand, supported the judgments of both Courts
below, submitting that there was no infirmity in the findings or sentences.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 06:16:35 pm )
7.Heard the learned counsel on both sides and carefully perused the
materials available on record.
8.Six witnesses and five documents (Ex.P1 to Ex.P5) were before the
Courts below and no defence evidence was adduced. Both the Courts
found that the accused’s presence at the scene was admitted and
unrebutted that the nature of the offences under Section 352 of IPC and
Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act was
established by the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and that, despite P.W.3
turning hostile, the evidence sufficed for conviction.
9.On careful consideration, I find no error in the conclusions of fact
reached by the Courts below save in respect of sentencing. The conviction
under Section 352 of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act, 2002, is upheld. However, in view of the 20
days already undergone in judicial custody and the payment of the fine of
Rs.10,500/- has already been paid, the sentences are modified as follows:-
(i)The petitioner is convicted under Section 352 of IPC and imposed a
fine of Rs.500/- only (the default sentence having been rendered otiose by
payment).
(ii)The petitioner is convicted under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and imposed a fine of Rs.
10,000/- only (the default sentence having been rendered otiose by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 06:16:35 pm )
payment).
10.The conviction and sentence insofar as they relate to Sections
294(b) and 506(i) of IPC are confirmed (i.e., acquittals are upheld).
11.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed, in
terms of the above modification of sentence and in all other respects, the
judgments of the Courts below are affirmed. No Costs.
16.07.2025
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes
Mrn
To
1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Thanjavur @ Pattukkottai.
2.The Judge, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Pattukkottai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Vattathikkottai Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 06:16:35 pm )
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Mrn
16.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 06:16:35 pm )
