Madras High Court
Sundaramani vs The State on 14 November, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.11.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2025
Sundaramani .. Petitioner
Versus
The State
Rep. By the Sub Inspector of Police,
Alagapuram Police Station,
Salem District. .. Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of
Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment passed in C.A.No.45 of 2024, dated
30.04.2025 on the file of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Salem in confirming the order of conviction, dated 30.01.2024 passed in
C.C.No.28 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Additional
Mahila Court, Salem sentencing the petitioner 1) to pay fine of Rs.1000/-
in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment for offence under
Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 2) to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in
default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment for offence under
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 3) to undergo one year Simple
Imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo one month
Simple Imprisonment for offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 07:03:00 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2025
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 by allowing the present
Criminal Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Ms.Saba Fathima,
for Mr.R.Jayaprakash
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment of the I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, dated 30.04.2025 made in
Crl.A.No.45 of 2024 and the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate,
Additional Mahila Court, Salem, dated 30.01.2024 made in C.C.No.28 of
2018. The Trial Court, by the aforesaid judgment, found the petitioner
guilty of the offence under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and
ordered payment of fine of Rs.1,000/-; of the offence under Section 323 of
the Indian Penal Code, ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-; of the offence
under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women
Act, 2002 and sentenced to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and
pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. The said conviction and sentence was
confirmed by the Appellate Court. As against which, the Revision is filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 07:03:00 pm )
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.01.2018, at about 10.40
A.M, in front of the house bearing D.No.1/478, Periyapudur, J.J.Avenue,
Alaghapuram, the accused, being the landlord, abused the tenant/victim by
using sexually coloured, unparliamentary language questioning whether
he has to pay the electricity bill of the victim also and not stopping with
that, he hit her on her mouth and face and kicked her on her abdomen.
The complaint to the said effect was lodged by P.W.1, Sharmila Banu. On
the strength of which, P.W.6 registered a case in Crime No.9 of 2018 and
took up the same for investigation and laid a Final Report proposing the
petitioner/accused guilty. Upon the case being taken on file and the
summons being issued, after due opportunity to the petitioner, charges
were framed for the above offences. The petitioner denied the charge and
stood trial. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined
P.W.1 to P.W.6 and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6 were also marked. Upon being
questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
accused denied the incriminating circumstances and material evidences on
record as false and incorrect. Thereafter, no evidence was let in on behalf
of the defence. The Trial Court considered the case of the parties and
concluded that by the evidence of the victim, who was examined as P.W.1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 07:03:00 pm )
and the corroboration of P.W.2, to whom the P.W.1 reported the incident
and the further evidence of the hearsay witnesses namely, P.W.3 and P.W.4
coupled with the Ex.P-3, wound certificate and the evidence of the
Doctor, P.W.5, concluded that the prosecution has proved the offence
beyond the reasonable doubt and sentenced the accused as aforesaid.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/accused filed an appeal. The Appellate
Court, after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on
record, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
As against which, the present Revision Case is filed.
3. Ms.Saba Fathima, learned Counsel for the petitioner, firstly,
would submit that even as per the version of the prosecution, the offence
is alleged to have taken place within the compound belonging to the
accused and as such, the offence under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal
Code will not be made out. The learned Counsel would further contend
that the fact that when the offence was taken place in broad day light,
except P.W.1, nobody else witnessed the same, was omitted to be
considered by the Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court. As a
matter of fact both the Courts below did not consider the fact that when
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 07:03:00 pm )
there is a common electricity bill connection and even if one of the tenants
default, the connection will be cut off by the Electricity Department, on
account of which, the landlord who is occupying the first floor, had to pay
the bill amount and as such, the quarrel arose. The due suggestion has
been made to P.W.1 in that regard. Therefore, the learned Counsel would
submit that in this case, it is unsafe to rely upon the sole evidence of the
prosecutrix alone and to convict the petitioner.
4. Per contra, Mr.S.Sugendran, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor would submit that this is a dispute between the landlord and
the tenant. Even if the tenant had not paid the electricity bill, the accused,
being the landlord, ought not to have resorted to any violence. The
prosecutrix evidence is duly corroborated by the other witnesses i.e., P.W.2
to P.W.4, with whom, immediately, the prosecutrix has shared the incident
and the same is further corroborated by the wound certificate and the
Doctor, who gave the wound certificate was also examined. Therefore, he
would submit that there is nothing for this Court to interfere in exercise of
the revisionary jurisdiction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 07:03:00 pm )
5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and
perused the material records of the case.
6. In this case, the allegation is that the accused used sexually
coloured, abusive and unparliamentary language, also hit the victim on her
face, kicked on her abdomen and caused simple injuries. The fact that
there was a dispute between the landlord and tenant and that is also
because of non-payment of electricity bill, is not disputed even by the
defence. In that view of the matter, merely because nobody else had
happened to see the incident, it cannot be said that the offences are not
made out. Secondly, the version of the prosecution is that the incident
happened opposite to the house in the public place and no evidence has
been let in by the accused to contend that it is inside the compound wall.
Thirdly, with reference to the injuries, the wound certificate has been
marked and the Doctor has been examined as P.W.5. For all the above
reasons, when the Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court have
appreciated the evidence on record and have returned the finding of guilt,
I do not see any perversity to interfere in exercise of the revisionary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 07:03:00 pm )
jurisdiction with reference to the finding of guilt. However, with reference
to the sentence, I am inclined to consider the following:-
(i) The fine amount, in all totalling to Rs.12,000/- is already paid by
the accused. He has undergone imprisonment for a period of nine days,
after the Appellate Court's judgment before this Court could enlarge the
petitioner on bail.
(ii) The petitioner/accused is now aged 53 years. There are no other
bad antecedents against the petitioner. This occurrence happened in the
year 2018 and he is facing the proceedings for the past seven years.
(iii) The victim, being the tenant, has reportedly vacated the
premises and she has moved out and the conflict has no potential to exist
or to resurface.
(iv) The victim and the accused will not come to face to face
hereinafter.
(v) The nature of injuries, being simple in nature, is also taken into
account.
(vi) As far as the harassment is concerned, the fact that there is
absolutely no sexual intent or overture, is also taken into account and this
is a pure and simple dispute between the landlord and tenant that too on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 07:03:00 pm )
account of non-payment of the electricity bill. The same is also taken into
account.
(vii) From and out of the fine amount paid, over and above, the
compensation, if any that could have been received under relevant scheme,
a sum of Rs.5,000/- can also be paid as compensation to the victim.
All the above are taken into account and I am of the view that while
confirming the conviction and imposition of the fine on the accused, the
sentence of imprisonment, that is imposed by the Trial Court, alone can be
modified as one of period already undergone.
7. In view thereof, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed on
the following terms:-
(i) The conviction of the petitioner made by the judgment of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Salem in C.C.No.28
of 2018 as confirmed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Salem in Crl.A.No.45 of 2024, for the offences under Sections
294(b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Tamil
Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, shall stand
confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 07:03:00 pm )
(ii) The fine amount, as imposed by the Trial Court, shall stand
confirmed. The fact that the same is already paid, is also recorded.
(iii) The sentence or imprisonment that is imposed by the Trial
Court alone is modified as one of period already undergone.
(iv) Out of the fine amount already paid, a sum of Rs.5,000/- shall
be paid as compensation to the P.W.1, victim.
14.11.2025
Neutral Citation : no
grs
To
1. The I Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Salem.
2. The Judicial Magistrate,
Additional Mahila Court, Salem.
3. The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Alagapuram Police Station,
Salem District.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 07:03:00 pm )
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,
grs
14.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 07:03:00 pm )
