JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction passed by the I Additional Court in C.A.No.10 of 2016 dated 21.12.2016 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Thiruvarur by confirming the order of conviction passed in C.C.No.183/2011 dated 06.08.2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvarur.)

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

2. Convicted sole accused is the revision petitioner herein.

3. This criminal revision is filed against the judgment and order of conviction in C.A.No.10 of 2016 dated 21.12.2016 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Thiruvarur by confirming the order of conviction passed in C.C.No.183/2011 dated 06.08.2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvarur.

4. The respondent-police filed a charge sheet in Crime No.324 of 2010 alleging that on 24.10.2010 at about 1.00 pm, when the defacto complainant/P.W.1-Revathy was watching T.V., inside the house, in the absence of her parents, the accused through the backyard of the house, entered in the house of P.W.1 and caught hold of her and dragged her hand and against her wish, he has touched the breast and P.W.1 slapped the accused. In the meantime, the father of the victim entered in the house, as he heard, hue and cry, the accused ran away from the house and at that time, P.W.2/father of P.W.1, chased the accused and the accused ran away from the scene, in respect of which, P.W.1/Revathi lodged the complaint/Ex.P1 and the same was registered as Ex.P6/FIR, for the alleged offence under Sections 451, 354, 376 r/w 511 of IPC.

5. After investigation, Ex.P8/Alteration Report is filed, thereby, charge sheet has been filed under Sections 451, 354 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act. After trial, the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused, as stated supra and on appeal in Crl.A.No.10/2016, the same was dismissed. Hence, the revision.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that dual punishment for the same nature of two offences cannot be imposed in respect of 354 of IPC and under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998.

6(a). Further, filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.9878/2021, for compounding the sentence and consent affidavit has been filed. Without prejudice to the consent affidavit for compounding the offence, the learned counsel further contended that there is ill motive for false implication of the accused.

7. The suggestive case of the defence is that on earlier to the occurrence, the father of the victim girl has sustained injuries during the course of his coolie work with the petitioner, by climbing the tamarind tree, for plucking the ripes. While he was climbing, he fell down in a darkness. Consequently, P.W.2/father of the victim, sustained injuries due to his own act. However, P.W.2 claimed huge compensation from the accused. As the accused failed to make payment, hence, false case has been foisted against the petitioner/accused. The victim/P.W.1 used as a tool to extract more money.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner drew my attention to the admission made by P.W.1/victim fact of that his father (P.W.2) had fell down from the tamarind tree and claim of compensation demanded by them and refused by the accused.

9. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that taking advantage of the absence of the parents at home, on that day, the accused came to the house through the backyard, entered the house of P.W.1/victim and caught hold of her hand and thereafter, pulled her hand by touching the modesty of the girl and touched breast and thereby, he has committed the offence.

10. The evidence of P.W.1 is taken up for consideration as to the charge, after going through the evidence of P.W.1, on combined reading of chief and cross examination, I find that P.W.1/victim has clearly deposed the act of the accused inside the house