IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 10.01.2017 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Crl.R.C.No.763 of 2011 Balaiah Naidu ... Petitioner vs.
Sub- Inspector of Police, Manavalanagar Police Station, Thiruvallur, Cr.No.449 of 2007 ... Respondent Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.A.No.53 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track court No.3, Thiruvallur dated 19.05.2011 arising out of the judgment dated 24.06.2010 in C.C.No.32 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Thiruvallur and set aside the same and acquit the revision petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Aswin for Dr.G.Krishnamurthy For Respondent : Mrs.M.F.Shabana, Gov. Adv. (Crl. Side)
O R D E R
The sole accused in C.C.No.32 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Thiruvallur, is the revision petitioner herein. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 448, 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 1998. The trial Court, by judgment dated 24.06.2010, convicted the accused under Section 448 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and imposed a fine of Rs.250/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks, convicted him under Section 506(i) IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and convicted under Section Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of women Act 1998 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years and imposed a fine of Rs.4000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and the trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the petitioner/accused filed an appeal in C.A.No.53 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, No.III, Tiruvallur. The lower appellate court by an order dated 19.05.2011, confirmed the conviction and sentence, however, modified the sentence for the offence under Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of women Act 1998 to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of rs.10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.
Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
P.W.1 is a widow, who was living alone in Kilnallathhur village.
On 27.11.2007, at about 11.30 p.m., when P.W.1 was alone in the house, the petitioner/accused trespassed into her house and misbehaved with P.W.1. Immediately, P.W.1 pushed the accused outside her house, and on hearing the noise, P.W.2, who was the neighbour of P.W.1 came to the scene of occurrence and the accused ran away from the scene. Thereafter, she informed her son-in-law and has given a complaint before the police on 29.11.2007 at about 8.30 p.m.
3. On receipt of the complaint, P.W.6, Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.449 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 448, 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of women Act 1998 and the First Information Report is Ex.P.2. Then, he commenced investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence and recorded the statement of witnesses. He arrested the accused on the same day at 11.00 p.m. After completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet.
4. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment and the accused denied the same as false. In order to prove the case of prosecution, as many as 6 witnesses were examined and 2 documents were exhibited.
5. Out of the witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the victim in this case. According to her, on 27.11.2007, at about 11.30 p.m., when she was alone in her house, the accused trespassed into her house and tried to misbehave with her. Immediately, she pushed the accused out of the house, and the accused threatened her that he would do some witchcraft against her and her family, thereafter, he ran away from the scene. P.W.2, who is a neighbour, on hearing the noise, came to the house of P.W.1 and P.W.1 informed him about the occurrence. P.W.3 is a hearsay witness only P.W.1 informed him about the occurrence. P.W.4 is the son- in-law of P.W.1. P.W.5 is the daughter of P.W.1 and after hearing the news, they came to the house of P.W.1, thereafter, they have given a complaint before the respondent police on 29.11.2007 at about 8.30 p.m.
P.W.6 is the Inspector of Police, in the respondent police, on receipt of the complaint, registered a case and prepared First Information Report, conducted investigation and arrested the accused. After completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet.
6. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. He examined one Balaiya Naidu as D.W.1.
7. According to D.W.1, the accused is a saniyasi. P.W.1 used to borrow money from the accused and for the marriage of P.W.1's daughter, the accused has given Rs.2000/- to P.W.1. When P.W.1 demanded more money from the accused, the accused refused to give and hence she has given a complaint against him.
8. Having considered all the above, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences as stated in first paragraph of this order. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, he filed an appeal before the lower appellate court and the lower appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence, however, modified the sentence as mentioned in the first paragraph. Aggrieved over the same, the accused is before this Court with this revision.
9. Heard Mr. M.Aswin, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mrs.M.F.Shabana, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.
10. According to P.W.1, on the date of occurrence, at about 11.30 p.m., while she was sleeping inside her house, the accused came there and tried to misbehave with her. Immediately, she pushed the accused out of the house and she raised alarm. At that time, the accused threatened her that if she informed the same to others he will use some witchcraft against P.W.1. Thereafter, she informed the same to her relatives and she has given a complaint after two days.
11. P.W.2 is a neighbour. According to him, only after hearing the noise of P.W.1, he came to the house of P.W.1. At that time, P.W.1 told him that the accused tried to misbehave with her. Then, he advised the accused and thereafter, the accused left. P.W.3 is a relative to P.W.1. He came to know about the occurrence through P.W.1. P.W.4 is the son- in-law of P.W.1. After P.W.1 informed about the occurrence, he along with P.W.1 went to the police station and lodged a complaint. P.W.5 is the daughter of P.W.1. She also came to the house after hearing the news.
12. Except P.W.1, there is no other eye-witness to the occurrence. But, P.W.1 evidence is inspiring and according to her, while she was sleeping alone in her house, the accused trespassed into the house and tried to misbehave with her. When, she raised alarm, P.W.2 neighbour came and saw the accused in the house of P.W.1. Even though there is a delay of two days in giving the complaint, it has been properly explained by the prosecution. P.W.1 in her evidence has stated that since the accused threatened P.W.1 that he will do black magic, she informed the same to her relatives and thereafter, her relatives came and they have given a complaint. Hence, the prosecution has explained the delay in filing the complaint.
13. Considering the evidence and the materials available on record, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has clearly established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the court below.
14. So far as the sentence is concerned, now the petitioner is 75 years old man and he has no bad antecedents and the occurrence also took place in the year 2007. Taking into consideration all the above and the aggravating as well as the mitigating circumstances, the sentence is modified to the sentence already undergone by the petitioner/accused, which to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, and the fine amount is directed to paid the defacto complainant under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
15. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed and the conviction imposed on the appellant is confirmed and the sentence is modified to the sentence already undergone, and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- , in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, and fine amount is directed to be paid to P.W.1 as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
10.01.2017 mrp To
1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track court, Coimbatore at Tirupur
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
V.BHARATHIDASAN.J., mrp Crl.R.C.No.763 of 2011 10.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in