High Court partly allowed a criminal revision by confirming appellants conviction for harassment and injury but modified sentence to time already undergone and imposed a fine.
Revision allowed insofar as sentence was modified to the period already undergone and fine imposed of Rs.10,000 each with default imprisonment of two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Bail Slilp
The Appellants/Accused 1 to 3 namely 1.Joseph S/o Jjebaraj, 2.M.Deva @Devendran S/o Maruthan, 3.J.Babu S/o John were directed to be released on bail vide order dated 02.08.2011 in MP 1/11 in CRL RC No.1021/2011.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.01.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
Crl.R.C.No.1021 of 2011
1.Joesph
2.M.Deva @ Devendran
3.J.Babu ... Petitioners
vs
State
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Podanur Railway Police Station,
Podanur.
(CrimeNo.238 of 2007) ... Respondent
Criminal Revision filed under section 397 r/w 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment dated
03.06.2011 passed in C.A.No.250 of 2010 on the file of the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track
Court No.III), Coimbatore modifying the judgment dated
11.11.2010 passed in C.C.No.928 of 2007 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore.
For Petitioners : Mr.L.Mahendran
For Respondent : Mrs.M.F.Shabana
Government Advocate(Crl. Side)
O R D E R
The accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No.928 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore are petitioners herein. The petitioners stood charges for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act,1998. After trial, the trial Court convicted the petitioners/accused under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act,1998 and sentencing them to undergo one year simple imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and acquitted them for the offence under Section 323 IPC. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the petitioners have filed a Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.250 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.III), Coimbatore. The appellate Court, by its judgment dated 03.06.2011, dismissed the appeal, by confirming the judgment, however modifying the sentence to undergo three months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred this present criminal revision case.
Subsequently, he went to the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar[Ex.P2], Rough Sketch[Ex.P6] and he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Then, he went to the Hospital and examined the Doctor, who gave treatment to the injured, and other witnesses and recorded their statements, after completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet before the jurisdictional Court.
persons attacked him with stone. He was given first aid and admitted him in the hospital, and on the next day without informing the Hospital Authorities, he left the Hospital. P.W.7, the Inspector of Police, working in the respondent police station. According to him, on receipt of the complaint from P.W.1, he registered a case in Crime No.238 of 2007 for the offence under Section 323 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act,1998. Subsequently, P.Ws.3 and 4 produced the accused along with special report. He recorded the statements of P.Ws.3 and 4 and arrested the accused and sent them to the judicial custody. Then, P.W.7 examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and other witnesses and recorded their statements and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet before the jurisdictional Court.
occurrence and took the accused to the police station. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged a complaint before the respondent Police Station. P.W.1 is father of victim girl. P.Ws.3 and 4 are constables working in the Railway Protection Force. It is their evidence that P.W.1 informed them that some unknown persons abused her daughter orally and insulted her. When he along with P.Ws.2,3 and 4 went there, the accused attacked one unknown person for the reason that when he questioned them why abused the victim girl. Immediately, P.Ws.3 and 4 took all the accused and produced them before the Inspector of Police/P.W.8. He arrested the accused. So it is consistent evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 that all the accused orally abused P.W.2 and insulted her, when a stranger questioned them, they attacked him and caused injuries. Even though the injured person was not examined as witness. But, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 clearly proved that all the accused committed the offence. Both the Courts below after considering the evidence proper perspective convicted the accused, and I find no infirmity or perversity in the finding of the Courts below. Hence, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has clearly established to guilt of the accused.
/true copy/
rrg
To
3.The Judicial Magistrate No.VI,
Coimbatore.
4.Do Thro Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Coimbatore.
5.The Superintendent
Central Prison,
Coimbatore.
6.The Inspector of Police,
Podanur Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
7.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.R.C.No.1021 of 2011
MG(CO)
GN(08/02/2017)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction of the appellants for abetting harassment and causing injury under sections 323 IPC and 4 TN Prohibition of Harassment Act should be upheld.
Whether the sentence of the原审法院 should be modified in light of the circumstances of the case.
Whether the period already undergone in jail should be set off against the modified sentence.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
1.Joseph S/o Jjebaraj
2.M.Deva @ Devendran S/o Maruthan
3.J.Babu S/o John
State
V.Bhharathidasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
V.Bhharathidasan
Parties & counsel
