The necessity for corroborating evidence in conviction cases abides, although the court may uphold convictions based on sufficient direct testimony.

ORDER

Challenging the judgment of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pudukottai, in Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2021 dated 23.11.2022, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Pattukkottai, in C.C.No.29 of 2020 dated 22.04.2021, convicting the petitioner and imposing a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 352 IPC , and sentencing him to one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act , 2002, this Criminal Revision Case is filed.

2.The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.29 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court). The prosecution case is that on 10.05.2018 at 08.00 a.m., when the defacto complainant had gone to her poultry farm along with her husband, Saminathan, at North Street, Kuruchi Village, within the jurisdiction of Vattathikottai Police Station, due to a previous enmity over a land dispute, the accused scolded her with filthy language, grabbed her hair and also attacked her husband, Saminathan, threatening that he would not spare them, if they frequented the area. On her complaint, the respondent police filed a final report against the accused for offences under Sections 294 (b), 352, 506 (i) of IPC , and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act , 2002. Originally, the charge sheet was presented before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai, and taken on file on 09.10.2018 as C.C.No.289 of 2018. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the learned Fast Track Court, Pudukottai, renumbered on 21.01.2020 as C.C.No.29 of 2020 and upon the accused’s appearance copies were furnished to him free of cost under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and on questioning, he pleaded not guilty.

3.The learned Trial Court examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 on the prosecution side and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. On being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating circumstances against him, the accused denied the prosecution evidence and did not adduce any defence evidence. After considering all documentary and oral evidence, the learned Trial Court found the accused guilty under Section 352 of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act , 2002 and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under of , in default of which, the accused was to undergo one month simple imprisonment, and sentenced him to one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act , in default of which he was to undergo three months simple imprisonment and thus, totalling a fine of Rs.10,500/-. The learned Trial Court acquitted the accused of the offences under Sections 294 (b) and 506 (i) of .

4.Aggrieved, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2021 before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur at Pattukottai. By the impugned judgment dated 23.11.2022, the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge confirmed the learned Trial Court’s conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. Challenging that decision, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant (P.W.1) and her husband (P.W.2) are closely related to the petitioner (the accused is the maternal uncle of P.W.1 and the brother of P.W.2), and that a long-standin