Madras High Court
S.Murugesan vs The State Represented By The on 7 April, 2025
CRL.A(MD).No.479 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 27.01.2025
Pronounced On : 07.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
CRL.A(MD).No.479 of 2018
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.11386 of 2024
S.Murugesan ... Appellant/Accused No.1
Vs.
The State represented by the
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Kulithalai.
(Crime No.8 of 2016) ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer : This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to
allow the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 11.08.2018 made in
Spl.C.No.6 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional Session Judge
(Fast Track Mahila Court), Karur.
For Appellant : Mr.A.John Vincent
For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:10 pm )
CRL.A(MD).No.479 of 2018
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed to set aside judgment passed by the learned Additional Session Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court), Karur, in Spl.C.No.6 of 2018, dated 11.08.2018.
2. The appellant/A1 in Spl.C.No.6 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional Session Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court), Karur, has filed this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him for the offence under Sections 354(D)(1)(i), 294(b), 323, 509 of IPC, Section 4 of TNPHW Act,1998 and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, by the impugned order dated 11.08.2018.
3. Prosecution Case:-
P.W.1 is the school going girl. P.W.2 is the father of the said girl. The appellant and the other accused are said to have stalked P.W.1 while she was going school and telling her that they loved her and also caused annoyance to her. On 25.12.2016, when the same was questioned by P.W.2, the appellant and other accused went to his snack shop and assaulted him and caused injuries to him and also criminally intimidated him. Therefore, a complaint was given and the same was registered in Crime No.8 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 323, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC and Section 12 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:10 pm ) CRL.A(MD).No.479 of 2018 of POCSO Act, 2012. The investigating officer conducted the investigation and arrested the accused and conducted investigation; examined the victim girl and also prepared mahazar and examined the remaining witnesses and also obtained certificate from the school of the victim girl to show her date of birth and filed the final report before the learned Additional Session Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court), Karur. The same was taken on file in Spl.C.No.6 of 2018.
3.1.After taking cognizance, the learned trial Judge framed the charges against the appellant for the offences under Sections 354(D)(1)(i), 294(b), 323, 506(i), 509 of IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 1998 and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. On the basis of charges, he questioned the appellant and the appellant pleaded not guilty and hence, the trial was conducted and the prosecution adduced the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.7 and marked the documents under Ex.P1 to Ex.P.7.
3.2. The learned trial Judge, considered the same, examined the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating materials available against him and he denied the same and hence, the case was posted for examination of the defence witness. On the side of defence, no witness was examined and no document was marked.
3/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:10 pm ) CRL.A(MD).No.479 of 2018 3.3. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the appellant from the offence under Section 506(i) of IPC and convicted him for the offence under Sections 354(d)(1), 294(b), 323, 509 of IPC, Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 1998 and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, by the impugned order dated 11.08.2018, and sentenced him to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) in default to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 354(d)(1) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) in default to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 1998 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) in default to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) in default to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 509 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 3 Rigorous 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:10 pm ) CRL.A(MD).No.479 of 2018 Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) in default to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012.
4.Aggrieved over the same, the appellant filed this appeal on the grounds stated in the memorandum of grounds of appeal.
5.1. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was delay in registering the case and there are inconsistencies in evidence about the place of occurrence and also the learned trial Judge after acquitting the accused under Section 506(i) of IPC erroneously convicted the accused under the other charges believing the evidence of the prosecution. P.W.1's evidence does not inspire confidence and also there is no corroboration between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. When a portion of story of the prosecution that the appellant and the other accused had criminally intimidated P.W.2, has been held as not proved, then other circumstances can not be believed.
5.2. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in the complaint itself it is stated that the snack shop of P.W.2 was situated nearby police station. Per contra, in the evidence, it has been stated that it 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:10 pm ) CRL.A(MD).No.479 of 2018 was situated near the Government Hospital. The said infirmity is the material and the same was not considered properly.
5.3. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are lot of inconsistencies between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and hence, the prosecution has not come forward with clear picture about the occurrence.
5.4.According to the prosecution, it is the specific case of the victim girl that the appellant committed harassment by stalking her and also told that he loved her. Further, both the appellant and the other accused threatened her riding a cycle closely grazing her. The said incident was not proved since there was no immediate complaint in this aspect. Therefore, he seeks to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1.
5.5. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned trial Judge has not considered the evidence of defence in proper prospective. The defence witness specifically stated that no such occurrence took place as spoken by P.W.1. P.W.2 also deposed in a similar line. Therefore, the same was not properly considered and hence, he seeks 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:10 pm ) CRL.A(MD).No.479 of 2018 for acquittal.
6.1. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that when P.W.1's evidence is cogent and P.W.2 specifically deposed about the sexual harassment faced by P.W.1 and P.W.2 also advised the accused not to indulge in such harassment. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is cogent in respect of sexual harassment made by the appellant and other accused.
6.2. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) further submitted that when the evidence of P.W.2 is cogent and believable, acquittal under Section 506(i) of IPC is not a ground to acquit the appellant under other charges. The learned trial Judge correctly convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 354(d)(1), 294(b), 323, 509 of IPC, Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 1998 and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. Therefore, he seeks confirmation of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge and also stated that discrepancy relating to snack shop in the evidence of P.W.2 is immaterial when the evidence of P.W.2 is believable and cogent and trustworthy.
7. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:10 pm ) CRL.A(MD).No.479 of 2018 records available on records.
8. P.W.1, the victim girl was studying 11th standard at the time of occurrence. The appellant and the other accused told her that they loved her and also caused some harassment to her by stalking her and riding a cycle closely grazing her. The said evidence of P.W.1 is cogent and trustworthy. There was no other reason for the victim girl to make such a false accusation due to any motive between the appellant's family and the accused's family. Nothing is available on record to disbelieve P.W.1 when her evidence is cogent and trustworthy. P.W.2 also clearly stated that when he questioned about the harassment made by the appellant and the other accused, they assaulted him and thereby, he sustained injuries. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 also is cogent and even though P.W.1 and P.W.2 were subjected to cross-examination, nothing was elicited to disbelieve their evidence. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are cogent in relating to the charges under Sections 323 of IPC, Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 1988, and 12 of POCSO Act. Apart from that, the charge was framed under Section 509 IPC also. Section 509 IPC, Section 12 of POCSO Act and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 1988, are cognizable offences and the ingredients of the said offences are also same and the deposition of victim girl is as follows:-
8/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:10 pm ) CRL.A(MD).No.479 of 2018 ,t;tof;F rk;gtj;jpw;F 6 khjj;jpw;F Kd;G ehd; gs;spf;F nrd;wNghJ KUNfrd; vd;id gpd;njhlh;e;J te;J vd;id yt; gz;Ztjhff; $wp vd; gpd;dhy; tprpy; mbj;J tUthh;. mg;NghJ KUNfrDld; uNk\Pk; Nrh;e;J irf;fpspy; vd;kPJ NkhJfpw khjpup tUthh;fs;.
9. From the above evidence, it is clear that the offences under Sections 354(d)(1), 294(b), 323, 509 of IPC, Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 1998 and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 were made out. Therefore, this Court concurs with the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge.
10. The question of sentence is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that now the appellant is married and has two children and he repents for his act and he is not involved in any other case.
11. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) also admitted the said submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and also submitted that there was no bad antecedents against the appellant.
12. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Court is 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:10 pm ) CRL.A(MD).No.479 of 2018 inclined to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone.
13. In view of the above, though the conviction passed by the trial Court for the offence under Sections 354(d)(1), 294(b), 323, 509 of IPC, Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 1998 and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, is hereby confirmed, sentence of Imprisonment for the offence under Sections under Sections 354(d)(1), 294(b), 323, 509 of IPC, Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 1998 and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, is reduced to the period, which was already undergone by the appellant. Fine amount with default sentence is hereby confirmed.
14. With the above modification, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
07 .04.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No dss 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:10 pm ) CRL.A(MD).No.479 of 2018 To
1.The Additional Session Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court), Karur.
2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kulithalai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4.The Section Officer, Criminal Section(Records), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:10 pm ) CRL.A(MD).No.479 of 2018 K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
dss Order made in CRL.A(MD).No.479 of 2018 and Crl.MP(MD)No.11386 of 2024 07.04.2025 12/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:10 pm )