Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AT MADURAI BENCH
B. Pugalendhi, J.
Vijayakumar – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 190 of 2014
Decided On : 07-11-2019
Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act - Section 4 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 452, 323 - Period of Imprisonment – Appeal against conviction - Prohibition of Women Harassment - Petitioner/accused was tried for offence under Sections 452, 323 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act before learned Judicial Magistrate in C.C. and learned Magistrate vide order found petitioner/accused guilty convicted and sentenced him as follows - Section of Law Period of Imprisonment - 452 IPC To undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month - 323 IPC To pay a fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month - 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act - To undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month - As against conviction and sentence imposed by trial Court petitioner/accused preferred an appeal before Court of Sessions and same was taken on file by learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court and by judgment first appellate Court has set aside punishment imposed under Section 323 IPC and modified sentence as against other two Sections – Held, At this juncture learned Counsel for petitioner/accused intervened and submitted that occurrence took place ten years back and over period there is no sorry incident and all are living peacefully – Therefore conviction should not trigger difference of opinion again – Moreover accused is having three children respectively and he is only breadwinner of family and if he is sent to prison entire family would be put into distress – Therefore learned Counsel sought for some indulgence - Even according to PW 1 she only triggered commission of offence by questioning accused and by fixing responsibility on him for damaged pipelines - That apart a suggestion has also been made to PW 1 that unmarried brother was living with accused and that she has made certain abusive linking statements against wife of accused - Considering fact that dispute is among family members and that incident was triggered at instance of PW 1/victim and taking into account plea made by learned Counsel for petitioner/accused this Court while affirming conviction under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, modifies sentence to period of imprisonment already undergone by petitioner/accused – However petitioner/accused is directed to pay a fine in addition to fine amount as ordered by trial Court and default clause as ordered by trial Court stands confirmed - Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed
JUDGMENT :
B. Pugalendhi, J.
1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/accused, as against the order dated 05.03.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Tuticorin, in C.A. No. 3 of 2012, modifying the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, in C.C. No. 195 of 2010, dated 05.12.2011.
2. The petitioner/accused was tried for the offence under Sections 452, 323 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, in C.C. No. 195 of 2010 and the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 05.12.2011, found the petitioner/accused guilty, convicted and sentenced him as follows:
| Section of Law | Period of Imprisonment |
| 452 IPC | To undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, i/d to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. |
| 323 IPC | To pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, i/d to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. |
| 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act
| To undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, i/d to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. |
3. As against the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions and the same was taken on file by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Tuticorin, in C.A. No. 3 of 2012 and by judgment dated 05.03.2012, the first appellate Court has set aside the punishment imposed under Section 323 IPC and modified the sentence as against the other two Sections as follows:
| Section of Law | Period of Imprisonment |
| 452 IPC | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/, i/d to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. |
| 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, i/d to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. |
4. Aggrieved over the conviction and sentence imposed by the appellate Court, the petitioner/accused has preferred the instant revision case.
5. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
5.1. According to the prosecution, the victim/PW 1 is the wife of PW 2. PW 2 and the accused are brothers. There are totally four brothers and their father has partitioned a property equally among his sons. There was a dispute between PW 2's family and the accused's family with regard to the share of the property and they were not in speaking terms for nearly seven years. There was a dispute prevailed between them in sharing of water also as well as in cultivating the lands belonging to the share of the 4th brother, namely, Rajan. It is alleged that the said Rajan, though initially allowed PW 2 to look after his lands, has later switched his side and therefore, the enmity persisted.
5.2. On the date of occurrence, i.e., on 08.09.2010, at about 08.45 am, PW 1 raised objections with regard to the damage caused to the irrigation pipes and out of that, the accused entered into the house of PW 1, assaulted her, dragged and kicked her out in the street. On account of the same, PW 1 sustained simple injury on the head and also a complaint of pain on her shoulders. After the arrival of PW 2, a complaint was lodged at about 03.00 pm, before the respondent Police and based on the same, a case was registered in Crime No. 130 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 448 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. After investigation, the respondent Police filed the final report and in conclusion of the trial, the trial Court convicted the petitioner/accused as stated supra.
6. Heard Mr. T. Senthilkumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and Ms. S. Bharathi, learned Government Advoc
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
