JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the order of conviction and sentence dated 31.03.2015 in C.A.No.27/2014 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruppur, confirming the order of conviction and sentence dated 16.04.2014 in C.C.No.247/2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Palladam, Thiruppur District and set aside the same.)

1. The matter is heard through “Video Conference”.

2. The convicted sole accused is the revision petitioner herein. The respondent-police filed a final report in Crime No.5 of 2011, for the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’), and the case was initially taken on file as C.C.No.247 of 2011, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Palladam, Thiruppur District.

3. The petitioner/accused was charged under Section 4 of the Act in C.C.No.247/2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Palladam, Thiruppur District. The learned Magistrate by judgment dated 16.01.2014, had convicted the petitioner and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 4 of the Act and imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo sentence for a period of three months simple imprisonment.

4. On appeal, in C.A.No.27/2014, before the Principal Sessions Court, Thiruppur against the conviction and sentence, the appellate Court was also confirmed the above conviction and sentence on 31.03.2015.

5. The learned counsel for the convicted accused would contend that Investigation Officer has not examined the family members of the accused, when admittedly the alleged scene of the occurrence is in shop, which is a part of their house and furthermore, the family of the accused is residing inside the very same area and the Investigation Officer also not examined anyone in the neighbouring house or businessman in the neighbouring shop which is a busy area. P.W.1 was returning home with hue and cry, on enquiry, described the incident to P.W.3 and P.W.4. Therefore, they are only hearsay witnesses.

6. Heard, the learned Government Advocate.

7. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:

(a) the petitioner was running a Grocery shop at Velappanayagan Palayam, Palladam, Thiruppur District. On 16.05.2011, at about 13.00 hours, the defacto complainant namely R. Kalamani who was a resident of Velappanayagan Palayam had purchased some goods from the petitioner’s shop at that time the petitioner was touch her left breast. Due to the said alleged allegation on 18.05.2011 at about 11.30 hours the defacto complainant lodged a complaint and the case in Crime Number 5 of 2011 was registered by the respondent police under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act against the petitioner.

8. The suggestive case of the defence is that the defacto complainant had been purchased goods from his shop in credit. The petitioner claimed the credit amount, but not repaid the amount. Due to the said motive, she lodged a false complaint against the petitioner.

9. On perusal of Ex.P1 complaint, date and time of the alleged occurrence, is not mentioned. However, it was clearly spoken to by P.W.1 in the witness box. P.W.2/Ramesh Kumar, husband of P.W.1, came to know the incident and on the next day, subsequently, they filed the complaint. P.W.4/Kanagaraj, deposed in his evidence, the alleged occurrence was happened on 17.11.2011 as described by P.W.1 when he was on the road, assumes significance.

10. P.W.1 is the victim girl, her evidence inspires the confidence of this Court, on two points. It the specific evidence that on 16.05.2011, while she went go purchase the provision and grocery from the shop running by the accused, all of a sudden, the accused had touched left breast and she made hue and cry and ran from the shop. While she was returning, P.W.3/Palanisamy and P.W.4/Kan