Trial Courts must adhere to statutory procedural requirements, including evidence examination, even when an accused pleads guilty; failure to do so compromises judicial integrity.

ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment, dated24.06.2022 passed in C.C.No.60 of 2021 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam and to set aside the same.

2. The brief facts of the case:

The revision petitioner is the defacto complainant. On the basis of complaint lodged by the petitioner, the first respondent police registered the case in Crime No.146 of 2020 U/s.147, 294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPC and U/s. 4 of the TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 against the second respondent/Muthuvel, one Kalimuthu and some others. After completion of investigation, the first respondent police laid a charge sheet U/s.294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPC and U/s.4 of the TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 against the second respondent alone. The learned District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, has taken on cognizance as C.C.No.60 of 2021 U/s.294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPC and U/s. 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 against the second respondent. After furnishing copies U/s.207 of Cr.P.C., charges were framed U/s.294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPC and U/s. 4 of TN PHW Act, against the second respondent, who denied the same. Thereafter, when the case was posted for examination of LW.1 to LW.4, the second respondent pleaded guilty and filed the petition admitting the charges.

On the basis of admission, the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam passed the impugned judgment convicting the second respondent U/s.294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each offence, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks for each charge and left the charge U/s.4 of TN PHW Act as it would not attract.

3. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the revision petitioner, who is the defacto complainant, has come forward with this present criminal revision case.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent, and the learned counsel for the second respondent. Perused the records in this Criminal Revision Case.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has vehemently argued that the occurrence took place, which was not at private place, it was paddy land, the accused committed the offence of outraging the modesty of the defacto complainant at public place. The F.I.R. was registered U/s.147, 294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPC and U/s.4 of the TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, against the second respondent and others, but the first respondent filed the charge sheet against the second respondent alone U/s.294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPC and under Section 4 of the TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statements are very clear implicating the second respondent and his brother-in-law, but the Investigating Officer laid a charge sheet against the second respondent alone. Moreover, though charges were framed U/s.294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPC and under Section 4 of the TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, and though the second respondent denied the charges, later at the time examination of witness, the second respondent pleaded guilty of the charges. While being the acts so, the trial Court has to examine the witnesses and has to find out whether all the charges proved, but, the trial Court simply considered the admission of guilty and fined Rs.1,000/- each only for 294(b), 323 and 506(2) of IPC and further held that the charge U/s.4 of TN