Crl.RC.No.20 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON: 14.12.2020

PRONOUNCED ON : .12.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN

Crl.RC.No.20 of 2018

Devi

... Petitioner

..Vs..

State by Inspector of Police,

Hudco Police Station,

Hosur,

Krishnagiri District.

...Respondent

Prayer: Criminal revision filed under section 397(1) read with Section

401 of Cr.P.C to set aside the judgment dated 06.11.2017 made in

C.A.No.30 of 2017 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Court,

krishnagiri confirming the Judgment dated 12.05.2017 made in

C.C.No.187 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II,

Hosur.

For Petitioner

: Mr.T.Sathiya Moorthy

For Respondent

: Mr.K.Madhan

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

1/20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl.RC.No.20 of 2018

ORDER

(This case has been taken up for hearing through Video

conferencing)

This criminal revision is preferred against the Judgment of the

learned Principal Sessions Court, Krishnagiri in C.A.No.30 of 2017 dated

06.11.2017 which confirmed the Judgment of the learned Judicial

magistrate No.II, Hosur in C.C.No.187 of 2013 dated 12.05.2017.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.07.2011 at about 9.15

a.m., when PW1, Periyasamy was in his cabin at Anand Electronics

Company situated at Krishnagiri-Bangalore Highways, which is within

the jurisdiction limits of Hudco Police Station, the petitioner/accused

came to his cabin and questioned PW1 as to why her probation period is

extended and started to quarrel with him. PW1 directed her to meet the

higher officials. The accused took chilly powder from the mundhanai

part of her saree and threw on the face of PW1 and also beaten him with

her chappal on his back and criminally intimidated him. PW1 suffered

simple injury in the said incident. The act of the accused is punishable

under Section 324, 355 & 506(ii) IPC.

2/20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl.RC.No.20 of 2018

3. After the accused entered appearance, she was furnished the

copies of the documents relied on by the prosecution. She was

questioned with regard to the offence alleged against her. Since there was

sufficient materials to frame charges against the accused under section

355, 324 & 506(ii) IPC, charges have been framed under these sections

and when the accused was questioned with regard to charges framed

against her, she denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined six witnesses, namely PW1 to PW6

and marked eight documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and produced MO1 chilly

powder and MO2 black colour ladies chappal in support of the case of

prosecution.

5. The prosecution case as discerned from the evidence of

prosecution witnesses,in brief, is as follows:

PW1 was working as a deputy manager in Anand Electronics,

Hosur. When he was performing his duty in his cabin on 06.07.2011, the

accused came to his cabin at 9.15 a.m and showed a letter to him and

asked him who is the signatory of this letter. He told her the Managing

3/20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl.RC.No.20 of 2018

Director of the Company had signed this letter. Then she asked him as to

why her probation was extended. In response to that, he told her that she

has to approach the higher officials of the company. Thereafter, the

accused asked to settle her accounts and PW1 told her to approach the

higher officials. At that point of time, the accused took a chilly powder

packet from the mundhanai part of her saree and threw on his face and

neck. Since the chilli powder caused burning irritation to his eyes, he

came out of his cabin. The accused hit him on his back and shoulder with

her chappal and told him that if she did not get her promotion because of

him and she would finish him. With the help of his friends, PW1 took

treatment at Government Hospital, Hosur. The Hudco Police came there

and enquired him