Murugesan v. The State Rep by the Sub Inspector of Police

ORDER This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused seeking to set aside the Judgment dated 21.06.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.256 of 2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Tiruppur, confirming the Judgment dated 16.05.2023 in C.C.No.33 of 2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Tiruppur.

¶2The brief facts of the case are that on 22.09.2015, one Ms.Sangeetha (de facto complainant) had lodged a complaint to the Respondent Police stating that on 20.09.2015, at around 6.00 p.m., Petitioner/Accused had abused her in filthy language and he had assaulted her and caused minor injuries to her. Based on the complaint of de facto complainant, Respondent Police had registered a case in Crime No.959 of 2015 under Sections 294(B), 323 of IPC r/w. Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act against the Petitioner/Accused. Then, the Investigating Officer took up the case for investigation and after the completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer had filed the Final Report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Tiruppur. The said Final Report was taken on file in C.C.No.33 of 2018.

¶3Before the Trial Court, on the side of prosecution, de facto complainant examined herself as P.W.1 and 8 other witnesses were examined as P.W.2 to P.W.9 and 7 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7. On the side of accused, no one was examined as witness and no document was marked as exhibit.

¶4On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence produced before it, Trial Court had held that prosecution has proved that the Petitioner/Accused had assaulted P.W.1 (de facto complainant) and caused simple injuries to her and thereby, Petitioner/Accused had committed the offence under Section 323 of IPC. Therefore, the Trial Court vide Judgment dated 16.05.2023 in C.C.No.33 of 2018, convicted the Petitioner/Accused and sentenced him to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.

¶5Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment passed by the Trial Court, Petitioner/Accused had filed a Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.256 of 2023 before the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Tiruppur. However, the 1st Appellate Court vide Judgment dated 21.06.2025, dismissed the said Criminal Appeal by confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, Petitioner/Accused has filed this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶6The learned counsel for Petitioner/Accused submitted that P.W.1 (de facto complainant) is the wife of Petitioner/Accused. There is a family dispute between the Petitioner/Accused and P.W.1 (de facto complainant) and thus, de facto complainant had lodged a false complaint against the Petitioner/Accused.

6.1. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for Petitioner/Accused that P.W.2 (younger brother of de facto complainant) is only a hearsay witness of the alleged incident and not an eyewitness. The Courts below have failed to note that P.W.1 (de facto complainant) and P.W.2 (younger brother of de facto complainant) are interested witnesses.

6.2. Merely based on the deposition of interested witnesses viz., P.W.1 (de facto complainant) and P.W.2 (younger brother of de facto complainant), the Trial Court had convicted the Petitioner/Accused for commission of offence under Section 323 of IPC. Therefore, the learned counsel for Petitioner/Accused prayed that the concurrent findings of the Courts below may be set aside and this Criminal Revision Petition may be allowed.

¶7On the other hand, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appeared on behalf of Respondent Police submitted that without considering that the de facto complainant is a woman, Petitioner/Accused had abused the de facto complainant in filthy language and assaulted her in the public place. Though P.W.1 (de facto complainant) is a wife of Petitioner/Accused, the Petitioner/Accused has no right to beat her. He further submitted that before the Trial Court, it was proved by the prosecution that Petitioner/Accused had caused simple injuries to P.W.1 (de facto complainant) by assaulting her with his hands and thereby, Petitioner/Accused had committed the offence under Section 323 of IPC.

¶8Heard the learned counsel for Petitioner/Accused and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on behalf of Respondent Police.

¶9From a perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that Petitioner/Accused and P.W.1 (de facto complainant) are husband and wife, but, they are not living together. From the deposition of witnesses viz., P.W.1 (de facto complainant) and P.W.2 (younger brother of de facto complainant), it is evident that the marriage of Petitioner/Accused and P.W.1 (de facto complainant) took place in the year 2002 and after their marriage, Petitioner/Accused was consuming alcohol regularly and under the influence of alcohol, he used to beat P.W.1 (de facto complainant). Due to the said acitivities of Petitioner/Accused, P.W.1 (de facto complainant) separated from Petitioner/Accused and living in her parents' house.

¶10According to P.W.1 (de facto complainant), on 20.09.2015, at around 6.00 p.m., Petitioner/Accused had abused her in filthy language and he had also assaulted her and caused minor injuries to her.

¶11P.W.2 (younger brother of de facto complainant) had deposed in his evidence that on the date of alleged incident, when the daughter of de facto complainant informed him that Petitioner/Accused had assaulted P.W.1 (de facto complainant), he immediately went to the house of P.W.1 (de facto complainant). So, it is clearly evident that P.W.2 (younger brother of de facto complainant) is not an eyewitness of the alleged incident and he is only a hearsay witness which is clearly evident from the deposition of P.W.2.

¶12It is to be noted that in the present case, the alleged incident had taken place on 20.09.2015, but, the de facto complainant had lodged the complaint only on 22.09.2015 i.e., two days after the date of alleged incident. If the alleged incident indeed took place on 20.09.2015, P.W.1 (de facto complainant) would have lodged the police complaint immediately on the very same day, but, P.W.1 (de facto complainant) did not do so. This creates a doubt that whether the alleged incident had taken place on the said date.

¶13That apart, there is no sufficient independent evidence on the side of prosecution to prove that Petitioner/Accused had assaulted P.W.1 (de facto complainant) and caused simple injuries to her.

¶14Without considering the above aspects, the Courts below have concurrently held that Petitioner/Accused had committed the offence under Section 323 of IPC. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the judgment of the Courts below and allow this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶15Accordingly, Judgment dated 21.06.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.256 of 2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Tiruppur, confirming the Judgment dated 16.05.2023 in C.C.No.33 of 2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Tiruppur is set aside and this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, Petitioner/Accused is acquitted of all charges. Fine amount, if any, paid by the Petitioner/Accused shall be refunded to him. Bail bond(s), if any, executed by Petitioner/Accused shall stand cancelled.

20.11.2025 mrr

Index: Yes/No Speaking Order (or) Non-Speaking Order To

1.The Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Tiruppur.

2.The Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Tiruppur.

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Anupparpalayam Police Station, Tiruppur.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J. mrr Crl.R.C.No.1477 of 2025

20.11.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 20.11.2025 Coram: The Honourable Mrs.Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI Crl.R.C.No.1477 of 2025 Murugesan ...Petitioner Versus State Rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police, Anupparpalayam Police Station, Tiruppur. ...Respondent This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 438 r/w. 442 of BNSS, 2023 praying to set aside the Judgment dated 21.06.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.256 of 2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Tiruppur confirming the Judgment dated 16.05.2023 in C.C.No.33 of 2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Tiruppur. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Thinesh For Respondent : Dr.C.E.Pratap, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)