M. Nagarajan vs State

C.S. Karnan, J.—The above criminal revision petition has been filed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Criminal

appeal No. 89 of 2008 dated 27.07.2009 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, confirming the Judgment of the conviction and

sentence passed for the alleged offence u/s 4 of Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, dated 16.07.2008, by the Judicial Magistrate No. VI,

Madurai to allow the criminal revision petition and set aside the conviction and sentence of the courts below:

The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

(a) The P.W.1 Subarani lodged a complaint with the Sub Inspector of Police, Annanagar, Madurai on 04.01.2007 at about 22.30 hrs, stating that

she was studying in the 1st year of the Law degree course. At about 8.45 p.m. she and her 3 years old child who were returning after purchasing

some household articles and while she was nearing Lookalike Blood Lab, the accused came in front of her and wilfully dashed against her and

abused her in filthy language. The said complaint was registered by the investigation officer in Crime No. 15 of 2007, an alleged offence u/s 4 of

Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act.

In the said criminal case 7 witnesses were examined, 4 documents were marked.

The prosecution case runs as follows:

(a) The S.I. of Police, Anna Nagar, Madurai has filed a charge sheet against the accused before the lower court stating that on 04.01.2007 at

about 20.45 hours when the complainant Subha Rani was coming with her 3 year old child along the southern street of Sri Moogambigai blood

testing laboratory situated at Anna Nagar 80 feet road, the accused who came from east to west dashed on her and attempted to outrage her

modesty and further abused her in filthy language and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 4 of T.N. Prohibitaion of women Harassment

Act.

(b) The learned Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Madurai took cognizance of the offence and furnished copies of the case records to the accused u/s

207 Code of Criminal Procedure Since the learned Magistrate found prima facie case against the accused the lower court framed a charge u/s 4 of

prohibition of Women harassment Act against the accused and when explained and questioned the accused pleaded not guilty.

(c) To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4.

(d) When the accused was questioned with regard to the incriminating circumstances in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses u/s 313 Code of

Criminal Procedure the accused denied the same as false. No oral or documentary evidence was on the side of the accused.

(e) On hearing both sides and on consideration of the evidence on record, the trial court found the accused guilty u/s 4 of T.N. Prohibition of

Women Harassment Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo S.I. for one month.

(f) Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal.

(g) The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction and sentence of the lower court are sustainable in law.

(h) Point: The charge against the accused is that on 04.01.2007 at about 20.45 hours at Anna Nagar 80 feet road near Moogambigai Laboratory

when P.W.1 Subarani was walking on the road with her child, the accused came from east to west and attempted to outrage the modesty of

P.W.1 and also abused her in filthy language and hence the accused is charged u/s 4 of T.N. prohibition of women harassment Act.

(i) To prove this charge the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence

the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Madurai found the accused guilty u/s 4 of T.N. prohibition of women harassment Act and sentenced him to

undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo S.I. for one month. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the

accused has preferred this appeal.

(j) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses P.Ws.2

to 4, there is contradiction between Ex.P.1 complaint and the evidence of P.W.1 and there is no external injury also. P.W.1 was a law college

student at the time of occurrence. She has deposed that on 04.01.2007 at about 08.30 p.m. when she was coming along Anna Nagar road near

Moohambigai Blood testing laboratory with her child, a man aged 30 years came in a cycle from the opposite direction and dashed P.W.1 he also

touched the chest of P.W.1, she raised an alarm as if the accused committed a theft of her chain, immediately the public caught hold of the accused

and contacted emergency police phone 100, later she lodged complaint at the Anna Nagar police and it is marked as Ex.P.1. In Ex.P.1, P.W.1

has stated that on 04.01.2007 at about 8.45 p.m. when she was walking with her 3 year old child near Moogambigai Blood testing laboratory the

accused dashed on her and abused her in filthy language, the public caught hold of her and brought her to the police station. Learned Counsel for

the appellant submitted in Ex.P.1 P.W.1 has stated that the accused dashed on her and abused her in filthy language. But during her evidence she

has stated that the accused touched her chest after dashing her. The learned Counsel submitted that this is a material contradiction affecting the

prosecution. But P.W.1 was walking with her child on the road, suddenly the accused appeared and dashed on her and touched her chest. The

first impression would be some body has snatched her chain only. She raised alarm that the accused has committed theft of her chain. Immediately

the accused was caught hold of by the public. So the contradiction is natural and it is not affecting the prosecution case.

(k) Now learned Counsel for the appellant submitted, though P.W.1 has deposed that the accused was caught hold of by the public and brought to

the police station, P.Ws.2 to 4 have not supported her evidence and they turned hostile. But in the FIR itself it is stated that the accused was

caught hold of by the public immediately and he was brought to the police station. The fact remains that the accused was caught hold of and

brought to the police station by the public. Though the prosecution examined P.Ws.2 to 4 to prove this fact, unfortunately they turned hostile,

P.W.1 is a lady. the accused an able bodied man was brought to the police station. If P.Ws.2 to 4 had not brought him to the police station, then

who brought the accused to the police station? Hence, it seems though P.Ws.2 to 4 have brought the accused to the police station now they turned

hostile. But the evidence of P.W.1 is trustworthy. She has no enmity against the accused. The evidence of P.W.1 is spontaneous. So even a

solitary evidence of P.w.1, is sufficient to prove the offence against the accused. The evidence of P.W.1 is strengthened by the arrest of the

accused immediately after the occurrence. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was some quarrel between the accused and

P.W.1 but it was exaggerated by P.W.1 and a false complaint was lodged. But before the court, P.W.1 has categorically stated, the overt act of

the accused. P.W.1 is a law college student. So this Court feels the evidence of P.W.1 is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.

(l) P.Ws.5 and 6 have deposed about observation mahazar. P.W.7 has deposed about the investigation. P.W.7 also admitted that on 04.01.2007

at about 22.30 hours P.W.1 presented a complaint in the police station, a case in Cr. No. 15/07 u/s 509 IPC was registered. He examined the

witnesses and recorded their statements. P.Ws.2 to 4 were examined in the police station immediately after the occurrence. Later they inspected

the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar. It is marked as Ex.P.2. The rough sketch is marked as Exp.P.4. So considering the

evidence of P.Ws.1 and 7 the prosecution has proved that the accused has committed the offence u/s 4 of the Prohibition of Women Harassment

Act. The lower Court has also proceeded in the right path and came to the correct conclusion. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the

finding of the lower court.

(m) As far as sentence is concerned the appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. When a lady while

walking on the road the accused voluntarily dashed on her and outraged the modesty of the lady. Considering the nature of offence, the sentence is

also not excessive. Hence the conviction and sentence of the lower court are confirmed. The point is answered accordingly.

(n) The appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence passed by judicial magistrate No. 6 Madurai in C.C. No. 244/07 dated

16.07.2008.

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner argued that there is no corroborative evidence in this case. The evidence of the P.W.1 other

prosecution witnesses, their evidence is varied and not in one voice. The prosecution witnesses 2, 3 and 4 are eye witnesses. Actually they rushed

to the spot after the incident which is an admitted fact. As per the evidence of P.W.1, she raised an alarm stating that the accused snatched her

gold chain. Immediately the neibours rushed to the spot and caught hold of the accused. Thereafter P.W.1 disclosed to the public that the accused

had molested and used filthy language to her. The learned Counsel vehemently argued that, on the side of the defacto complainant/P.W.1 one of

the evidence cites a difference of opinion, that the P.W.1 had raised alarm that the accused snatched her chain and ran off, immediately on hearing

the alarm the public caught hold of the accused then the P.W.1 changed her statement. This kind of different statements is not sustainable under

law in order to punish the accused. The learned Counsel argued that the point is not considered by the Court below, so the learned judges had

committed an error and erroneously punished the accused.

The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution case is well established before the trial Court after examining 7 witnesses and marked

4 documents. P.W.1 was a budding lawyer at the time of the occurrence, so her evidence is a solid one. The accused also was taken hold by the

public and handed over to the police. As such the occurrence is an admitted one which happened in public. The well considered judgment of the

trial Court is confirmed by the learned District Judge. Therefore, the punishment awarded by the Court below is an appropriate one.

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, arguments

advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and Judgment of the Court below, this Court is of the view (1) P.W.1 gave an alarm that her chain was

snatched by the accused after he was taken hold by the public, the P.W.1 narrated in public that the accused molested her and abused her in filthy

language; this sort of statement gives a difference of opinion on the side of P.W.1. This is a Crucial point to acquit the accused. (2) P.W.1 had not

narrated in her written complaint the manner in which the accused molested her and specific manner and filthy language used. (3) This Court is of

the view that if a lady making such allegations could be accepted by the public without analysing and applying considered mind. This Court''s

further view is that the public will take on a psychological stand in defence of the woman, and this is a typical case. Hence, this Court finds it

prudent to set aside the judgment passed in C.A. No. 89 of 2008 dated 27.07.2009 by the Principal Sessions Judge of Madurai, confirming the

conviction sentence passed in C.C. No. 242 of 2007 dated 16.07.2008, by the Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Madurai and allowed this Criminal

Revision Petition.

With the result the above Criminal Revision Petition is allowed, consequently, the punishment passed by the Court below in C.A. No. 89 of 2008

dated 27.07.2009, by the Principal Sessions Judge of Madurai, confirming the conviction sentence passed in C.C. No. 244 of 2007 dated

16.07.2008 by the Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Madurai sets aside the conviction sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. Connected M.P. is

closed. No costs. It is open to the revision petitioner to withdraw the fine amount after observing the legal formalities of the Court.