Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.Sivagnanam, J.
S.Shankar @ Saravanan - Petitioner
Versus
State rep.by Inspector of Police, AWPS – Tiruppur South Police Station - Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.747 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.11483 of 2021
Decided On : 23-12-2022
Criminal Revision Case - Conviction and Sentence - Sections 397, 401 of Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 354-A(1)(ii), 354-B IPC - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 354-A(1)(ii) and 354-B IPC and emphasized the requirement of demand or request for sexual favors under Section 354-A(1)(ii) IPC. The court highlighted the importance of corroborated evidence and the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution accused the revision petitioner of offenses under Sections 354-A(1)(ii) and 354-B IPC based on an incident where the petitioner allegedly pulled the victim's Nighty and placed his hands on her untouchable part. The trial court convicted the accused, which was partly confirmed by the appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no sufficient evidence to establish guilt under Section 354-A(1)(ii) IPC and acquitted the accused. The court emphasized the importance of corroborated evidence and the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt under Section 354-A(1)(ii) IPC and the requirement of corroborated evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of demand or request for sexual favors under Section 354-A(1)(ii) IPC and highlighted the importance of corroborated evidence and the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.
Final Decision: The criminal revision case was allowed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offenses under Section 354-A(1)(ii) IPC, which was confirmed by the appellate Court, were set aside. The accused was acquitted, and the bail bond executed by the accused was cancelled.
ORDER :
Prayer : Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in C.A.No.39 of 2021 dated 12.07.2021 reversing the judgment of the learned Additional Mahila Court at Magisterial Level, Tiruppur in C.C.No.610 of 2020 dated 29.04.2021 and allow this criminal revision petition.
This criminal revision case has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.A.No.39 of 2021 dated 12.07.2021 by Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, confirming partly the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.610 of 2020 dated 29.04.2021 by Additional Mahila Court at Magisterial Level, Tiruppur.
2. The respondent/Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station Tiruppur, prosecuted the revision petitioner/accused in Crime No.8 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A(1)(ii) and 354-B IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution is that Kavitha (PW1) is the resident of Pazhavanchipalayam. On 17.08.2020 at about 23 hours, while she was returning from her sister's house, in the street, the revision petitioner/accused pulled her Nighty due to which she fell down, thereafter, he placed his hands on her untouchable part. On hearing her voice, her husband Suresh came out from the house, on seeing him, the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, on 19.08.2020, she gave a complaint before the Tiruppur South All Women Police Station. On receiving the complaint, Ayammal/Inspector of Police (PW8) registered a case in Crime No.8 of 2020 and after investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A)(1) (ii) and 354 B IPC.
4. The trial Court, after trial, found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 354-A (354-A) (1)(ii) IPC and thereby convicted and sentenced to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment and for the offence punishable under Section 354-B IPC, convicted and sentenced to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.1000/- in default sentenced to undergo one week simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the revision petitioner filed the appeal in C.A.No.39 of 2021 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur. The appellate Court modified the conviction and sentence of the trial Court for the offence under Section 354 A (1)(ii) IPC and set aside the conviction and sentence of the trial Court for the offence under Section 354-B IPC. Aggrieved against the same, the present criminal revision petition has been filed.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that the appellate Court has not properly considered the prosecution witnesses. No case is made out against the accused person. On the date of occurrence, the revision petitioner/accused celebrated his birthday with his friends. The defacto complainant came out of her house and abused the revision petitioner with filthy language, thereafter, filed the complaint falsely against the revision petitioner/accused. The alleged occurrence, as per the prosecution, was on 17.08.2020 at about 11.00 p.m. and the complaint was given only on 19.08.2020. There is a delay in lodging the complaint, which was not properly explained by the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has not considered the defence raised by the revision petitioner/accused. Thus, pleaded to allow the criminal revision petition and to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and the appellate Court.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent submitted that the prosecution examined eight witnesses and marked six documents. Kavitha (PW1), who is the complainant and victim women, deposed before the trial Court clearly about the sexual harassment made by the revision petitioner/accused. Her evidence was supported by the evidence of Suresh (PW2) husband of PW1, Ramesh (PW3), Manikandan
The importance of corroborated evidence, the requirement of demand or request for sexual favors under Section 354-A(1)(ii) IPC, and the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.
Convictions for sexual harassment require corroborative evidence beyond mere allegations to meet the legal standards set by IPC.
Conviction under IPC can rely solely on the victim's testimony if credible, but all sentences must adhere to minimum statutory requirements.
Section 354A of the IPC is gender-specific and cannot be applied to female accused, necessitating quashing of charges lacking specific allegations.
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
