ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the revision petitioner to set aside the Judgment, dated 10.02.2016 in Crl.A.No.9 of 2014 passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli confirmed the Judgment, dated 18.12.2013 in C.C. No. 294 of 2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vallioor, Tirunelveli District.

2. As against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vallioor, Tirunelveli District, in C.C.No.294 of 2010, dated 18.12.2013, the revision petitioner has preferred an appeal before the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in C.A.No.294 of 2010. The lower Appellate Court, by judgment dated 10.02.2016, dismissed the appeal and the conviction and sentence to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment of One month for the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for One month for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for Six months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for One month for the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, was confirmed. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has preferred the instant criminal revision case.

3. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1/Viji's daughter, namely; P.W.2/Mariya Joseph Jenifer was studying Teacher Training in the Holy Cross Teacher Training College, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District, in which the revision petitioner was a Correspondent. Due to her illness, P.W.2 was absent for a period of One week. On 19.04.2010 at about 11.10 a.m., P.W.1 along with her daughter P.W.2 went to meet the revision petitioner who was in his cabin. At that time, the revision petitioner asked to produce a medical certificate and also demanded to pay remaining fees amount. Therefore, P.W. 1 requested to issue Transfer certificate of P.W.2. In this regard, a dispute arose between them. Subsequently, P.W.1 and P.W.2 came out from the cabin of revision petitioner. Thereafter, the revision petitioner abused P.W.1 by using filthy language and also criminally intimidated her. He assaulted P.W.1's left hand, right cheek, back side and head and also made life threat to her. Based on a complaint given by P.W.1, a case in Crime No. 83 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, was registered by the Radhapuram Police station.

4. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the Courts below have failed to consider that the allegation of Section 294(b) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act with respect to the allegations are stated in the complaint and the First Information Report, but the same are not found in the statement under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C., and therefore, both the Courts below have wrongly convicted on Section 294(b) of Cr.P.C., and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. He further submitted that the prosecution has not examined the Doctor who issued wound certificate. He further submitted that the Courts below have failed to consider the evidences of P.W.6 and P.W. 7 regarding no such occurrence held at the campus of the school. He further submitted that the fine imposed on the revision petitioner is highly excessive. Therefore, the Criminal Revision case is liable to be allowed.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the revision petitioner criminally intimidated the complainant/P.W.1 and abused her by using filthy language and also assaulted her by hands and caused simple injuries. She further submitted that he has been charged and the offences charged against him were clearly proved by the prosecution and therefore, the trial Court came to a correct conclusion and there is no infirmity to int