BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.07.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA Crl.A(MD)No.117 of 2018 Murugesan ... Petitioner Vs The Inspector of Police,, Samayanallur Circle, Sholavanthan Police Station, Madurai District.

(Crime No.116 of 2015).

... Respondent Prayer: This Criminal Appeal Case filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C to call for records in Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2016, dated 15.02.2018 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai and set aside the same.

For Appellant : Mr. T.Mohan For Respondent : Mr.K.Gnanasekaran Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

JUDGMENT

The present Criminal Appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, dated 15.02.2018 made in Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2016.

2.The appellant is the sole accused, who has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:

3.The case of prosecution as it appears from the records is that the defacto complainant and the victim woman belonging to schedule caste community. The accused belong to Hindu Maravar community and he knew about the caste of the victim. The victim is an unmarried woman and she is a mentally retarded person. Hence, she was not married. She used to take the cattle for grazing. On 04.05.2015, when she was grazing the cattle near Nedunkulam Channel, the accused came there with a bad intention and abused her by telling her caste and pulled her hands. The mother of the victim, PW1, who came to know about the occurrence, has lodged the complaint.

4.On receiving the complaint from the mother of victim, a case in Cr.No.116 of 2015 has been registered. After completing the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the accused before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti and the same was taken on file as PRC No.39 of 2015. After observing the legal mandates, the case was committed to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai. Subsequently, it was made over to the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.

5.The learned trial Judge framed charges against the accused under Sections 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and 354 IPC and questioned him. As the accused denied the offence and claimed to be tried, trial was conducted.

6.On the side of prosecution, 9 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW9 and 9 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. After observing the legal mandates and concluding the trial and on appreciating the evidence, the learned trial Judge had acquitted the accused under Section 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act and convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC by imposing the punishment as stated supra.

7.Aggrieved over that, the accused has filed this appeal.

8.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that nothing is available on the record to show that the accused has abused the victim or pulled her hands with any bad intention to outrage her modesty. The evidence of eye witness, who was examined as PW2, contradicts her own version. The victim girl was not examined as a witness. The learned trial Judge failed to give the benefit of doubt to the accused.

9.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

appearing for the respondent police categorically submitted that the victim woman is a mentally retarded person, who could not speak before the Court and on seeing her disability, the Court did not proceed to enquire the victim woman. The Court had proceeded to examine the other witnesses. Since the evidence of PW2 is reliable, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence under section 354 IPC. The trial Judge after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence in a right perspective, convicted the accused and therefore, no interference is warranted