IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 20.11.2025 Coram:

The Honourable Mrs.Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI Crl.R.C.No.1477 of 2025 Murugesan ...Petitioner Versus State Rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police, Anupparpalayam Police Station, Tiruppur.

...Respondent This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 438 r/w. 442 of BNSS, 2023 praying to set aside the Judgment dated 21.06.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.256 of 2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Tiruppur confirming the Judgment dated 16.05.2023 in C.C.No.33 of 2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Tiruppur.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Thinesh For Respondent : Dr.C.E.Pratap, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused seeking to set aside the Judgment dated 21.06.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.256 of 2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Tiruppur, confirming the Judgment dated 16.05.2023 in C.C.No.33 of 2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Tiruppur.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.09.2015, one Ms.Sangeetha (de facto complainant) had lodged a complaint to the Respondent Police stating that on 20.09.2015, at around 6.00 p.m., Petitioner/Accused had abused her in filthy language and he had assaulted her and caused minor injuries to her. Based on the complaint of de facto complainant, Respondent Police had registered a case in Crime No.959 of 2015 under Sections 294(B), 323 of IPC r/w. Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act against the Petitioner/Accused. Then, the Investigating Officer took up the case for investigation and after the completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer had filed the Final Report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Tiruppur. The said Final Report was taken on file in C.C.No.33 of 2018.

3. Before the Trial Court, on the side of prosecution, de facto complainant examined herself as P.W.1 and 8 other witnesses were examined as P.W.2 to P.W.9 and 7 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7. On the side of accused, no one was examined as witness and no document was marked as exhibit.

4. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence produced before it, Trial Court had held that prosecution has proved that the Petitioner/Accused had assaulted P.W.1 (de facto complainant) and caused simple injuries to her and thereby, Petitioner/Accused had committed the offence under Section 323 of IPC. Therefore, the Trial Court vide Judgment dated 16.05.2023 in C.C.No.33 of 2018, convicted the Petitioner/Accused and sentenced him to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment passed by the Trial Court, Petitioner/Accused had filed a Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.256 of 2023 before the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Tiruppur. However, the 1^st Appellate Court vide Judgment dated 21.06.2025, dismissed the said Criminal Appeal by confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, Petitioner/Accused has filed this Criminal Revision Petition.

6. The learned counsel for Petitioner/Accused submitted that P.W.1 (de facto complainant) is the wife of Petitioner/Accused. There is a family dispute between the Petitioner/Accused and P.W.1 (de facto complainant) and thus, de facto complainant had lodged a false complaint against the Petitioner/Accused.

6.1. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for Petitioner/Accused that P.W.2 (younger brother of de facto complainant) is only a hearsay witness of the alleged incident and not an eyewitness. The Courts below have failed to note that P.W.1 (de facto complainant) and P.W.2 (younger brother of de facto complainant) are interested witnesses.

6.2. Merely based on the deposition of interested witnesses viz., P.W.1 (de facto complainant) and P.W.2 (younger brother of de