CRL.A(MD).No.141 of 2021 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATE : 14.08.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN CRL.A(MD).No.141 of 2021 M. Karthick : Appellant/Sole Accused Vs. The State Rep by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kulithalai Police Station, Karur District. : Respondent/Complainant Prayer : This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the judgment passed in S.C.No.67 of 2019 dated 25.02.2021 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Karur and acquit the appellant/accused from the charges framed against him in the interest of justice. For Appellant : Mr.A. Sivasubramanian For Respondent : Mr.M.Aasha Government Advocate (Criminal Side) JUDGMENT The appellant/Sole Accused in S.C.No.67 of 2019 dated 25.02.2021 on the file of the on the file of the Sessions Judge, Karur, has filed this 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.141 of 2021 appeal, challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him by virtue of judgment dated 25.02.2021, under Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act. 2. The brief facts of the case as follows: According to the prosecution, on 13.01.2018, at about 07.30 p.m, when P.W.1 and P.W.2 were walking along infront of the house of one Somu, the accused along with two other accused came on a bike bearig Reg.No.TN-41-K-1640 and rode the bike close to P.W.1 and P.W.2 and scolded them in filthy language by using their caste name and pulled off the shawl worn by P.W.1. Therefore, a case in Crime No.23 of 2018 was registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 354 of IPC, Section 4 of TNPHW Act and Section 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, against the appellant. Thereafter, P.W.14 conducted investigation and filed the final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kulithalai, Karur District and the same was taken on the file. 3.On appearance of the appellant, copies of documents relied by the prosecution were furnished to the accused under section 207 of Cr.P.C. Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kulithalai, Karur District, found that 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.141 of 2021 the offence under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, is triable only by the Sessions Court and committed the case under Section 209(a) of Cr.P.C., to the Sessions Judge, Karur. Thereafter, the case was taken on file in Special S.C.No.67 of 2019. Then, the Learned Judge framed the charges for the offences under Section 294(b) of IPC r/w 3(1)(r) (s) of SC/ST Act and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act r/w Section 3(1)(w)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act and questioned the accused. The accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood trial. 4.To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.14 and exhibited 11 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 and marked are material object as MO.1. Thereafter, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C proceedings after disclosing the incriminating evidence available against him and he denied the same as false and thereafter, the case was posted for defence evidence. The accused neither produced any documents nor examined any witnesses on his side. 5. After considering the material adduced by the prosecution and also hearing the argument of the appellant, the learned trial Judge found 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.141 of 2021 the appellant guilty, and convicted and sentenced him as detailed below and acquitted him from the charges under Sections 294(b) of IPC 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act:- Accused Convicted under Section Sentence of Imprisonment/ fine imposed Sole accused U/s 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act Simple Imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 month. 6. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the present appeal has been filed. 7.1. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the Court below acquitted the appellant from the major charges i.e., 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act based on the same evidence, but erroneously convicted him for the offence under Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act. 7.2. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that when the offence under Section 294 of IPC ended in acquittal, there is no 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.141 of 2021 material to convict the appellant uunder Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act. Hence, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Judge. 8.1. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) on instructions and also upon going through the records, submitted that it is true that the accused was acquitted under Sections 294(b) of IPC 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act. But, the same is not a ground to acquit the appellant under Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act. 8.2. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) further submitted that when P.W.1 and P.W.2 clearly deposed about abusing the victims, the offence under Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act is made out and she specifically argued that there is a specific overt act attributed against the appellant that he pulled the shawl worn by P.W.1. Hence, there is harassment as per Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act. Therefore, she seeks to confirm the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant by dismissing the appeal. 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.141 of 2021 9. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record. 10. The specific allegation against the appellant is as follows:- i) Deposition of P.W.1 is as follows:- mth;fs; vq;fis ghh;j;J gwr;rp> gwg[z;il vd;W nftykhf ngrp rphpj;jhh;fs;. ,sq;nfhtd; vd; rhiy gpoj;J ,Gj;jhh;. nftykhf rphpj;Jtpl;L brd;Wtpl;lhh;fs;. ii) Deposition of P.W.2 is as follows:- mth;fs; vq;fis ghh;j;J nghwhSq;f gwg[z;ilq;f vd;W rhjpia brhy;yp nftykhf jpl;odhh;fs;. 11. The Court below disbelieved the evidence P.W.1 and P.W.2 in respect of the above said portion. In the said circumstances, this Court concurs with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that when the entire evidence is inseperable, without disbelieving the entire version, placing reliance on a particular portion of the evidence of the said witnesses is not correct. 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.141 of 2021 12. It is true that this Court has the duty to consider the evidence as a whole. The learned trial Judge disbelieved the material portion of the evidence and only placed reliance on a small portion of the evidence with accordance to the view of this Court unnecessary circumstance is not acceptable. According to the view of this Court, the deposition of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is unbelievable. In view of the specific finding given by the learned trial Judge acquitting the appellant from the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act, the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC which subsumes in Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act is not made out. Therefore, once the acquittal passed under Section 294(b) of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act, in the considered opinion of this Court, the conviction and sentence passed by the Court below is not in correct and the same is liable to be set aside. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed on the following terms:- 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.141 of 2021 13.1. The judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karur in S.C.No.67 of 2019 dated 25.02.2021 , is set aside. 13.2. The appellant is acquitted from all the charges in S.C.No.67 of 2019 dated 25.02.2021, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karur 13.3. Fine amount paid by the appellant shall be refunded to the appellant forthwith. 13.4.Bail bond executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled. 14.08.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet :Yes / No dss To 1. The Sessions Judge, Karur. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kulithalai Police Station, Karur District. 3. The Section Officer, Record Section (Crl.,) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.141 of 2021 K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN ,J. dss CRL.A(MD).No.141 of 2021 14.08.2025 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis