Conviction under harassment statute requires substantial evidence; mere allegations without corroboration are insufficient for sustaining a conviction.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 03.04.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.R.C.No.1243 of 2022 Kamaraj ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thiruvarur Police Station, Thiruvarur.

Crime No.394 of 2015. ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed in the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Thiruvarur in Crl.A.No.2 of 2021 dated 08.11.2021 confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur in C.C.No.4 of 2020 dated 07.12.2020 and directed to return the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- paid by the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Ms.Chandraleka For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER The petitioner/accused was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur in C.C.No.4 of 2020 by judgment dated 07.12.2020 and sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act . Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court in C.A.No.2 of 2021. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence of the Trial Court by judgment dated 08.11.2021. Against which, the present revision is filed.

2.The gist of the prosecution case is that on 22.07.2015 at about

7.30 p.m., the defacto complainant/P.W.1 was walking near Vilamal Bazaar, Thiruvarur and she was to visit her husband who was taking treatment as inpatient in the Hospital. At that time, the petitioner who is from the adjacent Village, enquired the defacto complainant and offered a lift to take her to Hospital. The defacto complainant went along with the petitioner in his bike and during the travel, the petitioner placed his hands on the thighs of the defacto complainant and started rubbing, which she resisted, shouted at him and she was pushed down. Thereafter, the petitioner attempted to pull her Saree and also tore her blouse. P.W.1 raised alarm, the nearby persons came to her rescue and the petitioner ran away from the place. Thereafter, the petitioner went to the Hospital and from there, information sent to respondent Police. The Sub-Inspector of Police came to the Hospital, recorded the statement of P.W.1, registered FIR and thereafter, he visited the scene of occurrence, recorded the statement of witnesses who were present in the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar, rough sketch, arrested the accused and on completion of investigation, charge sheet filed. During Trial, P.W.1 to P.W.7 examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 marked on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the defence, no witness examined and no documents marked. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner as stated above which was confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court.

3.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that before the Trial Court, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 294(b), 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act , on conclusion of trial, the Trial Court acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC but convicted him for offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act . When the Trial Court disbelieved the prosecution evidence for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC convicting the petitioner