Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 2280
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS (MADURAI BENCH)
T. KRISHNAVALLI, J.
K. Madhivanan – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police, Pudukottai – Respondent
Crl. A. (MD) No. 178 of 2017
Decided On : 30-06-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : N. Ananthapadmanabhan
For the Respondents: V. Neelakandan, Additional Public Prosecutor
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 354-A(2) - Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 - Section 4B(2) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 164 - Sexual harassment - Committed suicide - Appeal against conviction - Prosecution case is that deceased was a teacher working same school where accused was Headmaster and due to harassment by accused, deceased committed suicide at her parent's house - Held, All ocular witnesses were summoned and examined on same day and no referral time was given and hence, 164 statement of witnesses cannot be relied upon - In his requisition, it is stated that there is a chance for witness to turn hostile and hence, it is necessary to record statement of witnesses under section 164 of Code - On careful perusal of evidence of cross examination of PW14, it reveals that prosecution did not trust witnesses and hence, witnessed were forwarded for recording 164 statement - Hence, argument put forth on side of accused stating that 164 statement cannot relied upon is acceptable - Court view that prosecution has failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt and trial court without properly appreciating entire materials on record, both oral and documentary had given a wrong finding, which according to this court, is liable to be set aside and it is hereby set aside - Criminal Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
T. Krishnavalli, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukottai, passed in S.C. No. 35 of 2016, dated 12.06.2017.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Bhuvaneswari was a teacher working the same school where the accused was the Headmaster and due to harassment by the accused, the deceased committed suicide on 07.05.2015 at her parent's house. The Inspector of Police attached to Ganesh Nagar Police Station has filed a final report against the accused examining the witnesses.
3. The trial court, after careful perusal of the entire materials available on record, convicted the accused for the offence under section 354-A(2) IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default 3 months RI and also for the offence under section 4B(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998, sentenced him to undergo 5 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default to undergo one year RI and directed the sentences to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the appellant/accused is before this court.
4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
5. The first contention raised on the side of the appellant/accused is that PW1 to PW3 and PW5 to PW8 cited as witnesses to speak about the sexual harassment by the accused prior to the death of the deceased and there are lot of contradictions in the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and PW5 to PW8 and the competent person to speak about the occurrence is the co-workers of the deceased. But they were not examined and hence, it is fatal to the prosecution.
6. PW1 is the father of the deceased. PW2 is the mother of the deceased. PW3 is the husband of the deceased. The case of the prosecution is that prior to the occurrence, the accused frequently subjected the deceased to sexual torture and due to it, the deceased committed suicide. To prove that the accused sexually harassed the deceased, PW1 to PW3 and PW5 to PW8 were examined.
7. PW1 deposed that one year after the marriage of his daughter, she received phone calls, but his daughter did not disclose about the calls and one day, he saw that his daughter was crying after returning from her duty and when he asked her, for that her daughter replied that she had stomach pain and only on 06.05.2015, he came to understand the sexual harassment by the accused. From the evidence of PW1, it reveals that prior to 06.05.2015, he did not know the alleged sexual harassment by the accused.
8. PW2 deposed that on 06.05.2015 at 10.30 am, her daughter received a phone call and her daughter was crying, while speaking in the phone and she got the phone from her daughter and she came to understand that the accused only made a call to her daughter and she asked the accused why her daughter was like this and for that, the accused asked her to give the phone to her daughter and then, she gave the phone to her daughter and then she went away. PW2 has not stated that her daughter told her that the accused sexually harassed her prior to 06.05.2015. Hence, it is held that she had also no knowledge about the alleged sexual harassment by the accused prior to 06.05.2015.
9. PW3 the husband of the deceased. He deposed that during the month of April 2015, he saw his wife in a depression mood and when he asked her, for that, she replied that the accused sexually harassed her. PW5 deposed that one day prior to the death of the deceased, she saw the deceased was crying and when she asked why she was crying, for that, the deceased replied that a teacher gave her torture and for that, she told her that the matter will be settled amicably and due to the torture by the accused, she committed suicide. PW5 has not stated during her evidence that the deceased stated that only the accused gave her sexual harassment. It is to be noted that PW5 deposed that she came to understand that one teacher harassed the deceased. During her
