VEERALAKSHMI Vs. KANNAPIRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision has been filed challenging the judgment made in S.C.No.142/07 dated 24.08.2009, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovilpatty.

(2.) THE prosecution case is summarised as follows:- 2(i). P.W.1 is a retired Teacher. THE victim girl P.W.2 and P.Ws.3 and 4 are her daughters and son. P.W.5 is the neighbour of P.W.1. P.W.1 lodged a complaint Ex.P1 with the respondent police stating that P.W.2 is a handicapped girl, who is not employed, that the accused is the neighbour, that P.W.2 informed her that 15 days back the accused misbehaved with her, that P.W.1 hauled up the accused and his father Ganapathy Naicker, that Ganapathy Naicker requested P.W.1 not to divulge the matter to anybody else, that the accused had been repeatedly misbehaving with P.W.2, that on 10.09.2006, in the morning, P.W.2 told P.W.1 that she should not live in the world for the misbehaviour of the accused towards her and she also wept, that at about 9.00 p.m. on that day, P.W.2 consumed Nurelle D 505 insecticide, that on hearing the distressing voice, P.W.5 and other neighbours rushed to the place and they administered soap solution and tamarind solution into the mouth of P.W.2 to make her to vomit the contents in her stomach and that P.W.2 was removed to Tuticorin Government Medical College Hospital. P.W.9, Inspector of Police, on receipt of the information from the hospital proceeded to the hospital and recorded a complaint from P.W.1 at 20.00 hours, came to Maniachy police station and registered a case in Crime No.21 of 2006 and lodged FIR Ex.P3 and at about 20.15 hours he proceeded to the scene of crime and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P4 and rough sketch Ex.P5 in the presence of the witnesses. He also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 15.09.2006, the Sub Inspector of Police P.W.11 arrested the accused at 08.00 a.m. in front of the Ottanatham E.B. Office and took him to police station and thereafter, he sent him to judicial custody. 2(ii). P.W.12, the Doctor attached to the Government Medical College Hospital, Tuticorin, examined P.W.2 and issued Ex.P6 Accident Register. He has stated that the patient is alleged to have consumed poison (Organo Phosphorus insecticide) at about 09.00 p.m. on 11.09.2006. On completion of the investigation, P.W.9 further examined the Doctor and other police personnel and laid charge sheet against the accused under Section 354 IPC and Section 4-A of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998. 2(iii). When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as regards the incriminating materials available against him in the prosecution evidence, he denied the complicity in the offence. He did not examine any witness nor had he marked any document. 2(iv). THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kovilpatty, on appreciation of the evidence, acquitted him of all the charges. Hence, the defacto complainant is before this Court with this criminal revision case. THE State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal.

(3.) MR.S.Durairaj, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that there is no motive for P.Ws.1 and 2 to make a false allegation against the accused, that the evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 to 4, though related among themselves, are satisfactory and convincing, that the material evidence would indicate that in view of the misbehaviour perpetrated upon her, she had taken the extreme decision of committing suicide by consuming poison, that this very incident is sufficient to show that the accused is guilty of committing the offence of outraging the modesty of the victim girl and that the evidence of P.W.2 alone is enough to convict the accused.