Madras High Court
Lakshmanan vs The State Represented By on 17 November, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Crl.RC.No.386 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.RC.No.386 of 2022
Lakshmanan ...Petitioner
Vs.
The State represented by
Inspector of Police,
South All Women Police Station,
Tiruppur.
(Crime No.05 of 2019) ...Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, against the judgment dated 17.12.2021 made in
Crl.A.No.49 of 2021 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur
confirming the judgment dated 30.07.2021 made in C.C.No.483 of 2019 on the
file of Additional Mahila Court, (Magisterial Level), Tiruppur.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:01:30 pm )
Crl.RC.No.386 of 2022
2/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:01:30 pm )
Crl.RC.No.386 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Revision is filed challenging the judgement of the learned
Additional Mahila Court (Magisterial Level), Tiruppur made in C.C.No.483 of
2019 dated 30.07.2021 and the judgement of the Principal Sessions Judge,
Tiruppur dated 17.12.2021 made in C.A.No.49 of 2021.
2. By the said judgement, the trial Court found the petitioner/accused
guilty of an offence under section 354 (A)(1)(i) and 506(i) of Indian Penal
Code. For the offence under Section 354 (A)(1)(i) and 506(i) of Indian Penal
Code, the petitioner/accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in defaut of
payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month for offence
under Section 354(A)(1)(i) and to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment
for offence under Section 506(i) of IPC.
3. On 01.06.2019 at about 3:00 p.m., when P.W.8 was on duty at the
All Women Police Station in Tiruppur South, P.W.1 came to the police station
and lodged a complaint stating that he is married and lives with his wife, son,
and daughter at the address mentioned in the complaint. He and his wife are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:01:30 pm )
employed. His daughter, the victim in this case, was working as a labourer at
the Hoseiry Company. On 24.05.2019, she drank poison and was admitted to
the Government Hospital, Tiruppur. Initially, when questioned, she said that she
took poison because her mother scolded her. However, later, when her mother
cajoled her and questioned her again, she disclosed that the Hoseiry Unit's
owner's son had sexually harassed her and also committed sexual violence. He
then threatened her not to tell anyone. Unable to endure this, she consumed
poison.
4. On the strength of the said allegations, a case was registered in
Crime No.05 of 2019 for the offence under Section 354(A)(i) and 506(i) of
Indian Penal Code, 1860. Thereafter, P.W.9, the Inspector of Police took up the
case for investigation and completed the investigation and filed a final report,
proposing the accused guilty of the aforesaid offences. On 07.09.2019, two
charges for the aforesaid offence were framed and upon being questioned, the
accused denied the charges as false and stood trial.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove the charges, examined P.W.1, the
father of the victim, who testified about the contents of the complaint and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:01:30 pm )
incidents leading to the filing of the complaint. The victim was examined as
P.W.2. She described how she was sexually harassed and stated that around
1:00 PM in May 2019, on a Wednesday, when she reported for work, the
accused took her inside the company behind the screen where there is a pooja
room and misbehaved with her. He did this three times. Unable to bear this, she
consumed poison. She was afraid to tell her parents about it, so she went to her
aunt's house. Her aunt repeatedly asked if there were any problems at work, but
she did not want to disclose the incident. She explained that she consumed
poison because her mother scolded her. She was also cross-examined in detail.
Thereafter, she disclosed the incident to her mother. The victim’s mother was
examined as P.W.3. She stated that she had to persuade her daughter to disclose
the offence. The witness to the observation mahazar was examined as P.W.4.
The witness to the rough sketch was examined as P.W.5. The victim's brother
was examined as P.W.6, who stated that after learning about the incident, went
to the workplace of the victim and that he and his friend was asked to go away.
The friend of P.W.6 who accompanied him was examined as P.W.7. The Police
Constable Grade-I who registered the First Information Report was examined
as P.W.8. The Investigating Officer was examined as P.W.9.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:01:30 pm )
6. The complaint was marked as Ex.P1. The observation mahazar
was marked as Ex.P2. The First Information Report was marked as Ex.P3 and
rough sketch as Ex.P4. When the accused was questioned about the
incriminating circumstances and material evidence on record, the accused
denied them as false. Thereafter, no evidence was let in on behalf of the
defence. The trial Court, thereafter, considered the case of the parties and found
that the version of the prosecutrix P.W.2 is reliable and the prosecution has
proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and held the accused guilty of
the offences and punished as aforesaid. Aggrieved thereby, the
petitioner/accused filed an appeal. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of
evidence, once again confirmed the fine amount and the sentence as imposed by
the trial Court. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court.
7. Heard, Mr. C. Prabakaran, the learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner. The first contention of the learned Counsel for the
petitioner is that when it is alleged that P.W.2 / victim had consumed poison
and was admitted into the hospital, no evidence was produced by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:01:30 pm )
prosecution in this regard. The doctors who treated the victim or anyone
connected with the treatment were not even examined by the Investigating
Officer. The reason for consuming poison would have been recorded by the
hospital authorities, which could have clarified the entire episode, but this was
not produced by the prosecution.
8. Secondly, the way the victim describes the physical acts, along with
the embellishments added by P.W.3 / mother of the victim, such as claiming
there was bleeding, is hard to believe. From the evidence, it seems these
embellishments were added later, as they were not mentioned in the initial
complaint; this raises doubts about the episode itself. On behalf of the defence,
P.W.1-the father of the victim girl—P.W.2, and P.W.3 were also cross-
examined about enmity and rivalry in business between the accused and the
victim’s family. The defence argues that P.W.2, being of lesser intelligence, has
been used by her family to settle scores. The learned counsel points out that if it
is true that the accused misbehaved with the victim, she would have disclosed it
at least after consuming poison. However, she only stated that her mother
scolded her, which led her to consume poison. Naturally, she would have
disclosed the episode, especially after such an act, but she did not.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:01:30 pm )
9. The learned counsel argued that this silence, combined with the delay
in lodging the FIR, indicates possible fabrication or exaggeration of allegations.
Furthermore, no other employee or independent witness was examined, and
there is no supporting evidence besides the prosecutrix’s statement, which is
problematic given her low IQ. Considering these factors, it would be unsafe to
convict the petitioner/accused. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court
also failed to consider discrepancies in the testimony of the victim's mother and
father, as well as the timing and location of the company, nor was the victim
even taken for medical examination. In addition to the complaint, FIR, and
rough sketch, the prosecution has presented no other documents. The father was
cross-examined and admitted that even after the incident, she continued
working in the company, raising doubts about the case.
10. Per contra, M r . S. Vin ot h Ku m a r , the learned Government
Advocate appearing on behalf of the prosecution, submits that it can be seen
that when the prosecutrix was working under the accused, he dragged her to a
secluded place and indulged in the act. The severity of the impact on the
prosecutrix can be gauged from her conduct. She was unable to hold herself and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:01:30 pm )
ingested poison, and even thereafter, she did not reveal what happened until she
was repeatedly prompted, after which she came out with the truth. There was
no enmity between the prosecutrix’s family and the accused’s family, and from
the cross-examinations of P.W.1 to P.W.3, the weakness of the defence
becomes apparent. The victim was cross-examined in detail and withstood the
questioning. The defence could not elicit any favourable answers even from
P.W.1 and P.W.3. P.W.1 and P.W.3 corroborate the version of the prosecutrix.
Considering the nature of the allegations, there was no necessity to examine the
accused by medical experts. In fact, the victim should not be subjected to
unnecessary detailed medical examinations. The fact that the incident occurred
only during the lunch break should be taken into account, as should the other
employees leaving early and arriving late, and the accused calling only the
prosecutrix during that time for work, which indicates the intent behind the
harassment. The absence of other evidence can also be inferred from the
timings.
11. The Learned Government Advocate would submit that,
considering all the above, since the prosecution has proved the offence beyond
any reasonable doubt and both the trial Court and the first appellate Court, on
proper appreciation of evidence, have confirmed the conviction and sentence,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:01:30 pm )
there is no reason for this Court to interfere in its revisionary jurisdiction.
12. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and
perused the material records of the case.
13. Firstly, the P.W.2 the prosecutrix has clearly and categorically
spoken about the sexual abuse and harassment by repeatedly proposing to her,
as if the accused is in love with her and intimidating her to come to a
relationship, especially when the accused was a married man at the relevant
point of time and living with his family and thereafter, the physical acts that
were committed by the accused and the manner in which the accused as
committed by taking her behind the screen, considering the age of the victim
and also the fact that the parents themselves have deposed that she is slightly
lesser on the IQ, there is no ground or circumstance to doubt the version of the
prosecutrix. As a matter of fact, the very word harassment is used because of
the trauma that is being undergone by the victims of sexually predatory
behaviour. It is natural for the victim to keep quiet, cope, and swallow it within
herself at first. Unable to do the same, she has resorted to consuming poison .
Much later, she revealed the same to her mother, upon which the entire offence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:01:30 pm )
came to light.
14. Of course, when the mother testifies that the victim was bleeding
due to the sexual act at her breasts, such a statement is not supported by any
medical evidence, nor was it mentioned at the time of filing the complaint or in
the earliest versions given to the prosecution. However, this mere statement
does not cast doubt on the version of the prosecutrix, P.W.2, or on the rest of
her account regarding the offence, as relayed to P.W.3, which remains
corroborated by P.W.1 also.
15. The victim was 22 years old at the time of the offence and was
unmarried. The accused was 36 years old at that time and reportedly living with
his wife and children. The accused's physical and mental maturity relative to the
victim must be considered. Therefore, I cannot accept the learned counsel for
the petitioner’s argument that there is any abnormality in the victim’s behaviour
or that the delay raises suspicion. In fact, during the cross-examination of
P.W.1, the defence made a suggestion as if the accused’s father and P.W.1 had
prior enmity, implying that the complaint was fabricated. No specific details
were provided. The manner in which this suggestion was made appeared
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:01:30 pm )
stereotypical and formal; it was also a half-hearted question posed to P.W.2,
which she denied. Suddenly, during the cross-examination of P.W.3, it was
alleged that the accused and P.W.1 had professional jealousy, which led to the
false complaint. Again, no further details were given. Thus, the only defence
presented was not only superficial but also inconsistent, and I therefore reject
the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
16. Further, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate
(Crl.side), when the whole incident happened during the lunch break, the non-
availability of any other witness cannot cast doubt on the version of the
prosecutrix. Additionally, in this case, considering the nature of the physical and
sexual acts alleged against the accused, there was no necessity to examine the
victim by any doctor in detail. As a matter of fact, the complaint was not made
on the same day as the incident, and therefore, no purpose would be served by
subjecting her to further medical examination. The absence of examination by
the doctor who treated the victim/P.W.2, when she underwent treatment for
poisoning, also will not be fatal to the prosecution's case. Since the version of
the prosecutrix that she did not disclose the sexual abuse to anyone cannot be
doubted, her testimony commands the confidence of the Court. Therefore, there
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:01:30 pm )
was no prejudice to the case of the prosecution or the accused in not examining
the doctor who treated the victim earlier, when she consumed poison. Thus, I
am of the view that the grounds raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner
are untenable. Both the trial court and the appellate court have duly appreciated
the evidence on record and arrived at a finding of guilt. Accordingly, I confirm
the finding of guilt for the offences under Section 354A(1)(i) and 506(i) of the
Indian Penal Code.
17. Considering the question of sentence, the following submissions
are made:
(i) the accused is now 42 years old and is the sole breadwinner of his
family;
(ii) the accused is a physically challenged person; his right leg has been
amputated up to the knee due to an accident.
(iii) the accused is willing to pay compensation to the victim.
18. When, upon directives of this Court, the Investigating Officer reached
out to the victim, she clearly stated that she has since married and is living
happily with her family, and she will not accept even a single pie from the
accused. However, if any compensation comes from the Victim Compensation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:01:30 pm )
Fund or the Government alone, she will accept it and no other. In fact, her
conduct in this case is commendable. Although she was initially unable to
withstand the ordeal, she eventually gathered herself, ensured that the accused
was punished, and then displayed sufficient courage to move on with her life
and demonstrated an exemplary character by refusing any compensation from
the accused. In my opinion, her response is the most significant punishment for
the accused – “nkhjp kpjpj;JtpL ghg;gh mtu; Kfj;jpy; ckpH;e;JtpL ghg;gh”.
19. Considering the fact and considering the submissions that are made
by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and his physical disability, I am of the
view that the sentence can be modified, so as to suit the facts and
circumstances. It is stated that the accused has undergone imprisonment for 14
days. The victim is living in a different locality, and there is no chance for the
accused and the victim to come into contact once again; this is also taken into
account. The accused is now carrying on his business and is living with his wife
and two children is also taken into account. As a matter of fact, the wife and
children of this accused are also the unseen victims.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:01:30 pm )
20. In view of the above, this criminal revision is partly allowed on the
following terms:
(i) The finding of guilt of the petitioner/accused of the offences under
Section 354 (A)(1)(i) and 506 (i) of IPC by the trial Court by judgment in
C.C.No.483 of 2019 dated 30.07.2021 and by the appellate Court in C.A.No.49
of 2021 dated 17.12.2021 is confirmed;
(ii) The sentence, however, stands modified as the fine amount imposed
by the trial Court for the offence under Section 354 (A)(1)(i) is enhanced from
Rs . 5,000/- to Rs . 30,000/-.
(iii) The sentence of imprisonment is modified as one period already
undergone.
(iv) Upon the application made by the victim to the jurisdictional
District Legal Services Authority, the District Legal Services Authority shall
endeavour to disburse compensation to the victim with the specific
communication to the victim that the State pays the amount out of the Victim
Compensation Fund and not from the money belonging to the accused.
17.11.2025
veda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:01:30 pm )
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
veda
To
1.Inspector of Police,
South All Women Police Station,
Tiruppur.
2.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.
3. The Additional Mahila Court, (Magisterial Level), Tiruppur.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
5. The Section Officer,
Criminal Section, Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:01:30 pm )
17.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:01:30 pm )
