Crl.A(MD)No.160 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.03.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.A(MD)No.160 of 2015
Raja … Appellant / Accused
Vs.
State rep. by its
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thirumangalam Inner Division,
Thirumangalam Town Police Station,
Madurai District.
(Cr.No.783 of 2005) … Respondent / Complainant
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure
Code, against the Judgment and Conviction passed by the learned III
Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR) Madurai, made in Special
S.C.No.48 of 2011, dated 04.07.2015.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Saravanan
For Respondent : Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan
Addl.Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
The appellant / accused was charged and tried before the learned
III Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR) Madurai, made in
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/11
Crl.A(MD)No.160 of 2015
Special S.C.No.48 of 2011 and after trial, the Court below found the
appellant guilty and by Judgment, dated 04.07.2015, convicted the
appellant under Section 354 IPC., and sentenced him to undergo 6
months Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in
default, to undergo 1 month Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved over the
same, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as per
their ranking before the trial Court.
3. The facts of the case are briefly stated hereunder:-
(i) On 10.05.2005, at about 3.00 p.m., when P.W.1 / defacto
complainant, was gracing the goats, at Kappaloor, opposite to SIDCO
Rubber Company, at that time, the accused came there, along with
other accused, hugged P.W.1, by calling her a cast name and torn her
saree and jacket, however, P.W.1 escaped from the accused.
(ii) P.W.1 immediately informed the incident to P.W.2 and P.W.3 /
father and brother of P.W.1, who in turn, informed the same to the
Village people and Village Headman, for taking action against the
accused persons, however, they were not taken any action, hence, P.W.1
lodged Ex.P1 / Complaint before P.W.6 / Sub-Inspector of Police, on
21.05.2005.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2/11
Crl.A(MD)No.160 of 2015
4. On receipt of Ex.P1 / Complaint, P.W.6 registered a case in
Crime No.783 of 2005, for the offence under Sections 354 and 506(ii)
IPC., and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and prepared ExP.4 / FIR, sent the
original FIR to the Court and also sent a copy of Ex.P4 to P.W.7, the
Deputy Superintendent of Police.
5. P.W.7 / Deputy Superintendent of Police, on receipt of Ex.P4 /
FIR, at about 8 p.m., proceeded to the scene of occurrence on
21.05.2013. Again on 22.05.2013, proceeded to the scene of
occurrence, prepared Ex.P5 / Observation Mahazar and Ex.P6/ Rough
Sketch, in the presence of P.W.4 and P.W.5, recorded the statement of
witnesses, arrested the accused and remanded to the Judicial custody.
Further, obtained the community certificate of the accused from the
Revenue Department. P.W.7, after completion of investigation filed the
final report before the concerned court, for the offences
aforementioned.
6. Based on the above materials, the Court below framed charges
against the appellant for the offence under Sections 354 and 506(ii)
IPC., and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
http://www.judis.nic.in
3/11
Crl.A(MD)No.160 of 2015
7. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, 7
witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 7 and 7 documents were marked
as Exs.P1 to P7. On the side of the appellant / accused, no documents
were marked.
8. The Court below by pointing out the incriminating materials
recorded during the course of trial, questioned the appellant under
Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., and the appellant denied the same as false.
9. The trial Court on considering the facts and circumstances of
the case and also after analyzing he entire oral and documentary
evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved
the case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused in respect of
the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC., and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled
Caste / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, however,
convicted the accused under Section Section 354 IPC and sentenced to
undergo 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- in
default to undergo 1 month Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved by
which, the accused / appellant is before this Court by filing the present
appeal.
10. Mr.A.Saravanan, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant would submit that initially, the law enforcing agency
http://www.judis.nic.in
4/11
Crl.A(MD)No.160 of 2015
registered the case against three accused. Since the appellant / A1 was
not appeared before the trial Court, the case against him was split up
and other two accused were tried and they were acquitted However,
subsequently, the case against A1 case was conducted by assigning
S.C.No.48 of 2011 and the Court below acquitted accused in respect of
the offence under Section Section 506(ii) IPC., and Section 3(1)(x) of
Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, however, convicted the accused under Section Section 354 IPC
and sentenced him to undergo 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment with
default clause. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
that when the co-accused viz., A2 and A3 had been acquitted by the
Court below, the same benefit ought to have been given to the present
appellant.
11. Adding further, the learned counsel would submit that the
incident was happened on 10.05.2005, however, the complaint was
lodged only on 21.05.2005 and there is no proper explanation for delay
in filing the FIR. In the present case, P.W.1 is the victim, P.W.2 and P.W.
3 are father and brother of P.W.1. P.W.1 informed the incident to P.W.2
and P.W.3, who are not eyewitnesses to the occurrence and their
evidences are not much useful to decide the present case. Further,
P.W.2 in his evidence clearly deposed that the incident was happened
on 10.05.2005, the same was immediately informed to the Village
http://www.judis.nic.in
5/11
Crl.A(MD)No.160 of 2015
people and Village Headman, they assured to enquire the issue and
since they were not conducted proper enquiry, P.W.2 lodged the
Complaint, on 21.05.2005.
12. It is the further contention of the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant that though P.W.7 / Investigating Officer in his
evidence deposed that he examined the village people, no evidence
was adduced before the trial Court that there was initial complaint
before the Village President In the present case, the victim alone
gracing the goats in Government Poramboke land and previously, there
was a dispute with regard to removal of fire wood in that particular
place. In order to wreck vengeance, the false complaint has been filed
against the appellant. The allegation against the accused is that when
P.W.1 / defacto complainant, was gracing the goats, at Kappaloor,
opposite to SIDCO Rubber Company, at that time, the accused came
there, along with other accused, hugged P.W.1, by calling her a cast
name and torn her saree and jacket, however, P.W.1 pushed the accused
and escaped from there, however P.W.1 evidence is not corroborated
with any material evidence. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed
for allowing the appeal.
13. Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the
State would submit merely because some of the accused were acquitted
http://www.judis.nic.in
6/11
Crl.A(MD)No.160 of 2015
for want of evidence, the accused against whom there is legal evidence
can be convicted and the easy course of acquittal cannot be adopted by
the Court on the ground that the co-accused were acquitted. In this
case, P.W.1 had made a specific allegation against A1, as if he hugged
her, however, in respect of other accused, there is no serious
allegations against them. In the present case, the necessary
ingredients required under Section 354 IPC., has been clearly
established by the prosecution by examining P.W.1. Accordingly, the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
14. I have heard the submissions made on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
15. The following questions arise for consideration in the present
appeal :-
(i) Whether the prosecution established
the case against the accused in respect of an
offence under Section 354 IPC. ?
(ii) Whether the appellant attempt to
misbehave or sexually assault P.W.1 intending
to outrage her modesty?
(iii) Whether the order of the trial Court
is to be interfered with?
http://www.judis.nic.in
7/11
Crl.A(MD)No.160 of 2015
16. On perusal of records it is seen that the entire case revolves
between the evidences of P.W.1 / Victim and P.W.7 / Investigating
Officer. The other evidences are hearsay evidences. P.W.1 in her
evidence deposed that when she was gracing the goats, at Kappaloor,
opposite to SIDCO Rubber Company, at that time, the accused came
there, along with other accused, hugged and by calling her a cast name
torn her saree and jacket, however, P.W.1 pushed the accused and
escaped from the place and immediately thereafter, she informed the
same to P.W.2 and P.W.3. After two days of the occurrence, the accused
came with aruval to her house, threatened her and after 10 days, she
lodged the complaint before the respondent police. On perusal of
evidence of P.W.2, who is hearsay witness, in his evidence clearly
deposed that immediately after the incident P.W.1 informed the same to
P.W.2 and P.W.4, P.W.2 informed the same to the Village Headman and
the Village Headman assured him to take action, however, at that time,
P.W.2 did not reveal with regard to threatening by accused. There may
be justification in the action of P.W.2 for not lodging the complaint
immediately after the occurrence, however, P.W.7, who is the
Investigating Officer, in his cross examination clearly deposed that
with regard to delay in lodging the complaint, P.W.2 informed P.W.7
that he wanted to compromise the issue in the presence of elders of the
village. To that effect, P.W.7 did not examine the Village headman,
http://www.judis.nic.in
8/11
Crl.A(MD)No.160 of 2015
villagers and they were not added as witnesses in the present case.
Hence, P.W.1 is evidence is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the
accused. In the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has
miserably failed to examine the independent witnesses and to prove the
case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
17. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction
and sentence imposed on the appellant / accused in Special S.C.No.48
of 2011, by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR)
Madurai, dated 04.07.2015, is set aside and the appellant is acquitted
of the charges framed against him. The bail bond, if any, executed by
the appellant shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any, paid by the
appellant shall be refunded to him.
06.03.2020
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
MPK
http://www.judis.nic.in
9/11
Crl.A(MD)No.160 of 2015
To
1.The III Additional District and
Sessions Court (PCR)
Madurai.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thirumangalam Inner Division,
Thirumangalam Town Police Station,
Madurai District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4.The Record Clerk,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
10/11
Crl.A(MD)No.160 of 2015
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
MPK
Crl.A(MD)No.160 of 2015
06.03.2020
http://www.judis.nic.in
11/11