R RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against the order of conviction and the fine imposed against the revision petitioner by the learned Principal Sessions judge, Tiruchirapalli in C. A. No. 169 of 1990confirming the conviction imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Tiruchirapalli in C. C. No. 2377 of 1989 for the offences under Secs. 448 and 354 of Indian Penal Code to pay a fine of rs. 100 and Rs. 200 respectively.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 4. 11. 1988 at about 9. 00 p. m. this revision petitioner entered into the house of P. W. 1 with an intention to outrage her modesty and when he pulled her hands she came out shouting against him and again outside the house also he caught her blouse which was torn and hearing the shouting of P. W. 1 the neighbours and others who came there, beat the revision petitioner. THE prosecution examined seven witnesses of whom P. Ws. 1 to 3 are the eye witnesses. P. W. 1 the victim has stated in her evidence that on the occurrence night at about 9. 00 p. m. as her husband who is a tractor driver had gone out, she was lying down in her house with her child that the door was closed without bolting that as me revision petitioner entered into the house, she questioned as to who was that but the revision petitioner who caught hold of her hands, attempted to outrage her modesty, that when she shouted and protested, he asked her whether she is a woman of virtues. She also would state that, even when she came out of the house, the revision petitioner again caught hold of her hands and attempted to pull her inside the house and she threw the stones at him and the people who assembled also man handled him by beating him with stick. THE message has reached the police station and the Sub Inspector of Police hearing the breach of peace in the village came to the occurrence place and recorded the statement ex. P-1 from the complainant P. W. 2 father-in-law residing separately away from the house of P. W. 1 and P. W. 3 who is the resident of the opposite house had corroborated the version of P. W. 1 for the alleged attempt of the revision petitioner. Both the courts below have accepted the testimony of the witnesses and found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences mentioned above.

(3.) ONE thing is clear and that is the presence of the revision petitioner infront of the house of P. W. 1 at 9 a. m. on 4. 11. 1988 is admitted by the revision petitioner also. The revision petitioner has stated that he was beaten by the men of husband of P. W. 1 infront of her house. According to him as he was returning from his duty, and while he was passing through that way, he was manhandled by those persons. But the evidence of p. Ws. 2 and 3 would show that this revision petitioner was in the threshold of p. W. 1's house. The evidence of P. W. 3 is that the revision petitioner was standing in the threshold of P. W. 1 and was pulling her blouse. If really the revision petitioner was walking along the street, P. W. 3 would not state that this petitioner was standing in the threshold of P. W. 1. Therefore, from the evidence of these witnesses, it is because of the misbehaviours of the revision petitioner with P. W. 1, the persons residing close to the house of P. W. 1 got enraged and attacked the revision petitioner, on account of which he sustained injuries which are mentioned by P. W. 4 the Doctor.