PURUSHOTH Vs. JAYABAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioners/A1 to A3 seeking to set aside the judgment dtd. 7/6/2022 made in C.A.No.91 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Tindivanam and acquit them.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that in this case the first respondent/de-facto complainant lodged a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Gingee Police Station/second respondent and a case in Crime No.234 of 2015 registered for offences under Ss. 294(b) of I.P.C. r/w Sec. 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act and Ss. 448, 323, 352 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. On completion of investigation, charge sheet filed and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.94 of 2017. During trial, on the side of prosecution, PW1 to PW11 examined and Exs.P1 to P7 marked. On the side of accused, no witnesses examined and no documents marked. On conclusion of the trial, the trial Court acquitted the accused/A1 to A4, against which, the respondent filed an appeal in C.A.No.91 of 2018 before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Tindivanam. The Sessions Judge, by judgment dtd. 19/8/2019, confirmed the acquittal and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel submitted that he is making a legal submission not going into the merits of the case, since both the Courts below dismissed the case of the first respondent on merits. He further submitted that the first respondent aggrieved by the acquittal order dtd. 19/8/2019, filed a revision before this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1366 of 2019. This Court, by the order dtd. 4/2/2022 reversed the judgment of acquittal, but finding that there was no specific overt act attributed against A4/Adhi Naidu the acquittal confirmed on the other hand found the petitioners/A1 to A3 guilty for the offences charged, reversed the acquittal and remitted the case back to the Lower Appellate Court to award the sentence, since the revisional Court has no power to award sentence. Pursuant to the said order, the Lower Appellate Court received the case bundle, without considering the appeal independently, referring to the order passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1366 of 2019 mechanically convicted the petitioners/A1 to A3. By its judgment, no independent assessment of the evidence of witnesses and materials considered. According to the petitioners, this judgment is perverse, not sustainable in the eye of Law. Hence, the above revision is filed.