The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the alleged acts must meet the requirements of relevant legal provisions, including occurring in a public place or causing annoyance to others.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer:- This Criminal Revision Petition is filed, against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 21.12.2015, made in CA.No.30 of 2015, by the II Additional District Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, modifying the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 22.0.2013, made in CC.No.156 of 2013, by the Judicial Magistrate, Gingee.)

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed, against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 21.12.2015, made in CA.No.30 of 2015, by the II Additional District Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, modifying the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 22.0.2013, made in CC.No.156 of 2013, by the Judicial Magistrate, Gingee.

2. The brief facts of the case of the Prosecution are that on 27.5.2013, at around 9.00 a.m., while PW.1 Meena, was taking bath in a thatched bathroom, near her house, the Petitioner/A1 had taken a photograph of her through a cell phone through a hole from inside a nearby house under construction, belonging to one Minnal Elumalai and that when PW.1 had seen him, he had run away from the scene of occurrence and when PW.1 had questioned the act of the Petitioner /A1, the Petitioner/A2 had abused her in a filthy language and that the Petitioner/A1 had called her in a filthy language and stated that he had deleted the photograph. It is the further case of the Prosecution that on the complaint, Ex.P1 given on 01.06.2013, a case was registered in Cr.No.248 of 2013 for the offences under Section 294(b) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act and that after completion of the investigation, the Respondent had filed the final report, charging the Petitioner/A1 for the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act and the Petitioner/A2 for the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC.

3. The case was taken on file in CC.No.156 of 2013, by the Judicial Magistrate, Gingee and on appearance of the Petitioner/Accused, copies were furnished to them under Section 207 of Cr.PC and the Trial Court, questioning the Petitioner/Accused, had framed charges against the Petitioner/A1 for the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC and Section 4 of The Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act and against the Petitioner/A2 for the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC. The accused had denied the charges and sought for trial. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the Prosecution had examined PW.1 to PW.9 and also marked Exs.P1 to PW.8.

4. PW.1/ defacto complainant had deposed that her husband is working as a Coolie in Chennai and that he used to come to the Village once in 15 days and that the house of the Petitioners / accused was near to her house and that near to her house, one Minnal Elumalai was constructing a house and it was under construction and that the Petitioner/A1 used to come and sit there frequently. She had further deposed that on 27.5.2013 at 9.00 a.m., she was taking bath in a bathroom covered by saree and after bath, while she was changing her dress, she had seen the Petitioner/A1 taking photograph of her by a cell phone through a hole in the nearby house under construction and that she had called her neighbour and she was not there and she had raised an alarm and she had seen the Petitioner/A1 running away with the cell phone and thereafter, she had informed about the incident to her brother and elders in the Village and gone to the house of the Petitioner/A1 to question about his activities and at that time, the Petitioner/A2 had told her that only at her wish, he had taken the photograph and abused her in a filthy language and that she had told that he had deleted the photograph and she cannot do anything and thereafter, she had given the complaint and the reason for the delay in giving the complaint was that the Petitioner/A1 had quarreled with her under the influence of alcohol and that when she had asked for cell phone, he had told that she had broken the same and that the complaint was marked as Ex.P1 and the sign