Tmt.S.Alli, M.L.,Principal Sessions Judge / Special Judge Wednesday, the 31st day of July, 2024.Special Sessions Case No: 4 / 2022 conviction ordered/spp M.Sudhakar
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHENNAI
(Special Court under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act)
Present: Tmt.S.Alli, M.L.,
Principal Sessions Judge / Special Judge Wednesday, the 31st day of July, 2024.
Special Sessions Case No: 4 / 2022
- Name of the
Accused : Ramesh, S/o.Ekambaram. - Name of the
Complainant : The Assistant Commissioner of Police, M.K.B.Nagar Range, Chennai-600039. - Charges Framed : U/s 417 of IPC r/w Sec.3(i)(r) and 3(i)(w)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act and u/s 420 of IPC r/w
Sec.3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act and u/s 506(i) of IPC r/w 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. - Plea of Accused : The accused has pleaded not guilty.
- Finding of the Court : The accused is found guilty u/s 417 r/w 3(1) (w)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 420 of IPC r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The accused is not found guilty u/s 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act and u/s 506(i) r/w Sec.4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.
- Sentence or Order : The accused is found guilty u/s 417 r/w 3(1) (w)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act and 420 of IPC r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act and for the offence u/s 417 of IPC, the accused is sentenced to undergo One Year simple imprisonment and for the offence u/s 3(1)(w) (ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act, the accused is sentenced to undergo Three Years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-,
-2-
in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment and for the offence u/s 420 of IPC the accused is sentenced to undergo Five Years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo one month of Simple Imprisonment and for the offence u/s 3(1)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, the accused is sentenced to undergo Five Years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo one month of Simple Imprisonment.
Total fine amount is Rs.15,000/-
The above said sentences shall run concurrently.
The period of incarceration already undergone by the accused is given set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C.
No material objects produced in this case.
The accused is not found guilty for the offences u/s Sec.3(i)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act and u/s 506(i) of IPC r/w 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and he is acquitted from the said charges u/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C. - Crime Number and
Police Station : Cr. No.1167/2020.
P-5, M.K.B.Nagar Police Station, Chennai. - Prosecution conducted by : Thiru.M.Sudhakar,
Special Public Prosecutor. - Accused defended by : M/s.P.Thirumalai, Counsel for the accused.
This case coming on 19.7.2024 before this court for final hearing in the presence of Thiru.M.Sudhakar, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of M/s.P.Thirumalai, Counsel for the accused, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and upon perusing the documents and material papers of this case, having stood over for considerations till this day, this Court has delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, M.K.B.Nagar Range, Chennai has
-3-
laid a Final Report against the accused u/s 173(2)(1) of Cr.P.C. stating that the defacto complainant belongs to Adi Dravidar caste and the accused Ramesh belongs to Hindu Karuneegar Caste. In 2012, both had acquaintance with each other and the accused, gave false promise of getting marriage, extracted money and jewels and also property. When the defacto complainant asked him to marry her, the accused abused her by referring her caste on 3.9.2020 over phone and on 20.10.202, in the public place at No.605, 8th Street, 2nd Cross Street, the accused abused the defacto complainant by referring her community and told that he will not marry her and threatened her with dire consequences, hence, the accused appears to have committed the offences punishable u/s 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and Sec.294(b), 406, 420, 417, 506(i) of IPC and u/s 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. - This court issued copies of the documents to the accused free of cost u/s207 of Cr.P.C.
- On appearance of the accused before this Court and on hearing the
learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the accused, as there was a prima facie case that the accused might have committed the offences, this court framed charges u/s U/s 417 of IPC r/w Sec.3(i)(r) and 3(i)(w)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act and u/s 420 of IPC r/w Sec.3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act and u/s 506(i) of IPC r/w 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The charges were
-4-
read over and explained to the accused in Tamil and the accused denied the same and claims to be tried. Hence the Trial. - To establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had examined 14
witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 14 and during the course of their examination, Exs.P1 and P27 were marked. No oral evidence and documents on the side of the defence. - THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION IS AS FOLLOWS :
P.W.1 Nalini, in her evidence, has stated that she studied upto MBA and
working as Accountant in a private company. She belongs to Adi Dravidar community. She knows the accused, who belongs to Karuneegar (Brahmin) community. In 2012, she was working as Accountant in Bakgiam Wet Grinders company. The accused was working in Gadget World. He used to come to
Bakgiam Wet Grinders company and purchase mobile phones. At that time, the P.W.1 and accused Ramesh had friendship with each other. In 2013, the said Bakgiam Wet Grinders company was closed and the accused Ramesh told that he wanted to start a business, for which, he was going to obtain loan and for processing fee he requires Rs.50,000/- and asked the P.W.1 to bring jewels from her house and he would return the same within a week. Hence, in 2013, the P.W.1 gave one Necklace and Aaram in total 5 sovereign jewels to accused Ramesh. After one month, the P.W.1 demanded back the said jewels, for which, Ramesh informed that when he comes to a good position, he would return the jewels. In
-5-
2013, the P.W.1 joined as Accountant in Sri Associates, where on Murugesan, who was working as Driver tried to misbehave with P.W.1 and there was problem between the P.W.1 and the said Murugesan. P.W.1 informed the same to the accused Ramesh and he solved the problem. Thereafter, P.W.1 came out from the company and the accused Ramesh arranged a job as Accountant at Shrine Velankanni. At that time, the accused Ramesh expressed his love with P.W.1 and wanted to marry her. Since the accused helped her, she accepted for the same. In 2015, February month, Valentines Day Celebration time, on 17.2.2015, the accused took the P.W.1 to Hotel Ganga International and told that he is going to marry her and had intercourse with her by compulsion. They both went to the said hotel in the morning and returned at 6 p.m. Thereafter, he used to take P.W.1 twice or thrice in a month to the said Hotel Ganga International and had intercourse with her. In 2015, June, the accused Ramesh informed that without the knowledge of P.W.1, he fixed camera in the room and took video and by mistake, he sent the same to one Murugesan and the said Murugesan threatened that he would upload the same in the internet and demanded money. When they were thinking for the solution, the accused informed that he would borrow money from the father of her friend Bharani and asked P.W.1 to repay the same. Hence, P.W.1 gave her blank cheque and put her signature in the white paper and also gave her ATM card to the accused. The accused was maintaining the salary
-6-
account and bank account of P.W.1. Since the accused informed that the above said loan could not be repaid only with the salary and asked for a lumpsum amount. Hence, P.W.1 gave 3 sovereign gold chain in 2016, 3 sovereign gold chain in 2017. Further, in 2016, the accused took P.W.1 to Indian Bank and deposited the money of her mother into Fixed Deposit. On the same, day, they obtained loan of Rs.1,80,000/- from the said Fixed Deposit and withdrawn the same and gave it to the accused. The accused informed that using the said amount, he had settled the loan to the father of Bharani. Till 2018, P.W.1 repaying the loan amount from her salary. When the loan was in the stage of closure, P.W.1 asked the accused Ramesh to marry her, for which he asked her to wait. P.W.1 purchased a T.V. for Rs.27,000/- for the accused. On 5.6.2019, he obtained Rs.75,000/- as personal loan from IDFC Bank and gave it to the accused Ramesh. In 2017, August, she purchased a cellphone for him. Within one month, the accused informed that he lost the cellphone. Hence, P.W.1 purchased another Oppo Phone for him. On 26.9.2019, the accused informed that he received a phone call from Velachery Police Station stating that the said Murugesan gave a complaint stating that the accused cheated him Rs.20 lakhs and if he failed to give the said amount he transferred the house in his name. The accused further informed that he would get Rs.18 lakhs loan from the father of Bharani and asked
P.W.1 to give Rs.2 lakhs. Hence, P.W.1 gave Necklace, Aaram, small chain and
-7-
ring, totally 8 ¼ sovereign to the accused Ramesh. He told that he had sold the said jewels at Lalitha Jewellers and gave the money to the father of Bharani. In 2020, P.W.1 obtained loan from L & T and purchased one Activa Bike for the accused. Since the accused was not able to install Rapido App in the Oppo phone, P.W.1 purchased another Oppo phone for him by getting loan from TATA Capital. Thereafter, due to lockdown, she lost her job and she has no income. At that time, the accused informed that he has to return atleast Rs.1 lakh to the father of Bharani, failing which, he will conduct a panchayat. In order to get time, P.W.1 called Bharani and came to know that the accused did not get any loan from them and obtained money from P.W.1 on the guise of repaying the loan to the father of
Bharani. Further, P.W.1 came to know that the accused was already married. Hence, she gave stop payment to the banks. Since the accused informed that he had destroyed all the cheques, P.W.1 has not given stop payment to Union Bank of India. The accused filled up one of the cheques in his name for Rs.7 lakhs and gave a legal notice to P.W.1 on 26.9.2020, for which, P.W.1 gave a reply notice on 13.10.2020. Thereafter, P.W.1 called the accused and told that since he is using all the articles, he has to pay the loan amount, for which the accused did not accept. P.W.1 asked him to marry her and she will come to his house, for which, the accused abused her by referring her caste. On 20.10.2020, he came to the street of P.W.1 and abused her by referring her community. Thereafter, on
-8-
23.10.2020, P.W.1 gave a complaint before Assistant Commissioner of Police, Otteri. Ex.P1 is the said complaint. On 4.12.2020, she was examined at the police station. At that time, she gave her bank account statements for three banks, her community certificate, loan schedule, phone bill, T.V. Bill, Lalitha Jewellery Bill,
Bike Loan Bill to the police. The community certificate of P.W.1 is Ex.P2. In 2020 September, the accused called P.W.1 over phone and abused her by referring her community. P.W.1 recorded the same. She write the same into a CD and gave it to the Assistant Commissioner of Police. - P.W.1, in her evidence, further stated that on 29.3.2019, P.W.1
borrowed loan from IDFC, First Bank Limited for the accused and purchased Sony LED TV at Girias Investment Pvt. Ltd. for Rs.27,001/- She gave
Rs.26,202/- from the loan and Rs.798/- as cash. Ex.P22 is the receipt issued by Girias Investment Pvt. Ltd. On 19.8.2019, P.W.1 obtained loan from IDFC, First Bank Limited and purchased Samsung A50 mobile phone for the accused from Eagle Mobiles for Rs.29,000/- On 18.3.2020, she obtained loan from TATA Capital and purchased a Oppo A31 Black mobile phone for the accused from Eagle Mobiles for Rs.12,000/- Ex.P23 series (3 receipts) are the receipts for the purchase of the above said three mobile phones. The statement of account for paytm payment bank for the period from 23.10.2019 to 2.7.2020 is Ex.P24, where it has been mentioned the UPI payment of Rs.75,619/- by P.W.1 to the accused.
-9-
On 13.1.2020, P.W.1 gave her two gold rings to the accused for the repayment of the loan. The accused pledged the same in CR Chowdry Pawn Shop on 13.1.2020 for Rs.6,700/- Ex.P25 is the receipt for the same. The accused abused P.W.1 by referring her community over phone and the same was recorded by her. She has filed the said recordings by way of C.D. For which, she has filed the certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. The said certificate is Ex.P26. The accused paid Rs.3,724/- on 14.8.2020 the purchase of the two-wheeler through his Gpay. Ex.P27 is the receipt for the instalment. - P.W.2, Thiru.Mani, in his evidence has stated that he worked in DrugControl Office and retired now. P.W.1 Nalini is his neighbour and his brother-inlaw’s daughter. He knows the accused. He used to bring Nalini in his twowheeler and drop her at the corner of the street. On 20.10.202, there was quarrel and argument between the accused and Nalini. At that time, the accused abused Nalini by referring her community. When P.W.2 enquired, he came to know that there was problem between Nalini and Murugesan and the accused has solved the said problem, hence, they both had acquaintance and loved each other. Further, Nalini informed P.W.2 that she is going to marry the accused. Nalini informed that she gave huge money, jewels, blank cheque and ATM Card to the accused.
Using the said blank cheque, the accused initiated case for recovery of Rs.7 lakhs.
Nalini gave reply notice. Thereafter, the said quarrel was happened on
-10-
20.10.2020. On 4.12.2020, the police called Nalini to the police and enquired her. - P.W.3 Thiru.Nirmal Prabhu, in his evidence has stated that P.W.1 Nalini is his sister. He knows the accused. His sister and mother informed that on 20.10.2020, at 10 a.m., the accused came to the house of P.W.3 and had quarrel with his sister and abused her by referring her community. In 2012, his sister was working in a private company. At that time, she informed that she had love with Ramesh, who was working with her and she wanted to marry her. Further, she informed that she purchased TV, mobile phones, bike and gold ornaments to him. Further, in 2015, the accused took the sister of P.W.3 to Ganga International Hotel and they stayed there lonely. He fixed camera in the bathroom and threatened his sister with the said video. The sister of P.W.3 gave a complaint before the police.
- P.W.4, in her evidence has stated that she is working in Accenture
company. P.W.1 is her friend. In 2013, she joined in Sri Associate company as Accountant. P.W.1 was already working in the said company and she gave training to P.W.4. They both used to go the bus stop jointly and one or two times, P.W.4 saw Ramesh and Nalini were talking with each other. When P.W.4 enquired, Nalini informed that she was in love with Ramesh. Thereafter, after 3 or 4 months, P.W.4 left the said company. About 2 or 3 years from now, Nalini called P.W.4 and told thanks for the help rendered by the father of P.W.4. When P.W.4 asked what help her father did, shed told that the father of P.W.4 gave
-11-
Rs.20 lakhs as loan to her. When P.W.4 asked why he gave the loan, Nalini informed that Ramesh took the video when he along with P.W.1 were having intercourse and sent the same by mistake to one person, in order to settle the issue, Ramesh asked money from P.W.1 and hence, P.W.1 asked money from the father of P.W.4. P.W.4 informed P.W.1 that she would enquire her father and called her. When P.W.4 called her father and asked the above said facts, he informed that he did not give money to Nalini or Ramesh and he does not know them. P.W.4 informed the said fact to Nalini over phone and asked her to verify the same with Ramesh. - P.W.5 Thiru.Mohan, in his evidence has stated that he is working as
Team-Leader in Netmeds company. On 4.12.2020, at 7 p.m., the Assistant
Commissioner of M.K.B.Nagar Thiru.Harikumar visited the house of Nalini at S.A.Colony, 4th Cross, 2nd Lane and enquired Nalini. At that time, P.W.5 and one Jamal Ashik were present opposite to the house of Nalini. The Assistant Commissioner asked P.W.5 and Jamal Ashik and informed about the case and told that he is going to draw sketch of the occurrence place and asked them to be the witnesses for the same. He visited the occurrence place and prepared the rough sketch. P.W.5 and Jamal Ashik signed as witnesses in the said rough sketch. The signature found in the observation mahazar is of P.W.5 and the Observation Mahazar was marked as Ex.P3.
-12- - P.W.6 Thiru.Manikandan, in his evidence, has stated that in 2021,
he worked as Tahsildar at Ponneri, Thiruvallur District. On 11.1.2021, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, M.K.B.Nagar requested the genuineness certificate for the Community Certificate of one Ramesh. P.W.6 enquired the Village Administrate Officer and Revenue Inspector in this regard, obtained written reports and based on that, he gave a report that the said Ramesh, S/o.Egambaram, No.615-C, Chathrapathy Sivaji Street, T.V.Puram, Ponnery Taluk, Thiruvallur District belongs to Backward Class. Ex.P4 is the report sent by P.W.6. - P.W.7, Tmt.Sarala, in her evidence, has stated that in 2021, she wasworking as Tahsildar at Perambur, Chennai. On 7.12.2020, the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, M.K.B.Nagar gave requisition to verify the genuineness of the Community Certificate of one Nalini, D/o.Subramaniam, Perambur Taluk, Chennai District. P.W.7 verified the registers in her office and she did not found the same. On verification of register for issuing the Community Certificate, she found the R Dis 24085/2000, dated 27.6.2000 for the issuance of community certificate. Based on that, she gave her opinion in the report to the Assistant Commissioner for the genuineness of the community certificate as true. Ex.P5 is the said report. - P.W.8 Thiru.Suresh, in his evidence, has stated that he is an Auto
-13-
Driver. On 5.12.2020, at 11 a.m., when the was driving his auto towards Moolakadai, near APR Marriage Hall, there was a crowd. The M.K.B.Nagar police arrested the present accused. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, M.K.B.Nagar informed P.W.8 that he has arrested the accused and asked to be the witnesses for recording his confession statement. He recorded the confession statement of the accused and P.W.8 and one Swaminathan signed as witnesses. Signature of P.W.8 in the confession statement is Ex.P6. The Assistant Commissioner of Police recovered Honda Active bike and cellphone from the accused under mahazar. P.W.8 and one Swaminathan signed as witnesses in the mahazar. Ex.P7 is the seizure mahazar. - P.W.9 Thiru.Raja Ranjith Kumar, in his evidence has stated that on
7.12.2020, when he was working as Senior Manager at Bank of Baroda, T.Nagar Branch, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, M.K.B.Nagar gave requisition to issue the statements of one Nalini from 13.8.2018 to 30.11.2020. Ex.P8 is the letter given by the Assistant Commissioner. Based on that, P.W.9 issued the certified copy of bank statement of Nalini from 13.8.2018 to 30.11.2020. The said statement has been marked as Ex.P9. - P.W.10, in his evidence has stated that on 16.12.2020, when he was
working as Branch Manager of Union Bank of India, Alandur Branch, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, gave a requisition letter to issue the bank
-14-
statement of one Ramesh from 19.9.2015 to 16.12.2020 for the account No.593302010006082. Ex.P10 is the requisition letter issued by the Assistant Commissioner. P.W.10 took the print out of the account statement, attested and issued the same. Ex.P11 is the said bank statement. - P.W.11 Thiru.Elumalai, in his evidence has stated that on7.12.2020, when the was working as Assistant Branch Manager of Union Bank of India, T.Nagar Branch, the Assistant Commissioner of M.K.B.Nagar requested to given the bank transaction of one Nalini. Based on that he issued the attested copy of the statement of Nalini from 18.9.2015 to 15.9.2020. Ex.P12 is the said statement.
- P.W.12, Thiru.Ramesh, in his evidence has stated that on 4.12.2020,
when he was working as Inspector of Police, P-5, M.K.B.Nagar Police Station, he received the complaint of one Nalini through the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Pulianthope, Chennai and registered the case in P5 M.K.B.Nagar Police Station Crime No.1167/2020 u/s 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and Sec.294(b), 406, 420, 417, 506(i) of IPC and u/s 4 of TNPHW Act. Ex.P13 is the said First Information Report. - P.W.13 Thiru.Harikumar, in his evidence has stated that on
4.12.2020, when he was working as Assistant Commissioner of Police,
M.K.B.Nagar, the Inspector of Police, P-5, M.K.B.Nagar Police Station registered
-15-
the case in Cr.No.1167/2020 and sent the First Information Report to him. On the same day, at 7 p.m., P.W.13 went to the occurrence place and prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch in the presence of the witnesses Mohan and Jamal. Ex.P14 is the Rough Sketch. He enquired the witnesses Mani, Kokila, Nirmal Prabhu and Bharani and recorded their statements. On 5.12.2020, P.W.13 arrested the accused at E.H.Road, APR Marriage Hall at 11 a.m. At that time, the accused gave a voluntary confession statement. P.W.13 recorded the same in the presence of the witnesses Suresh and Swaminathan. He recovered the Honda Active bike bearing Registration No.TN-05/BZ/6329 and Oppo, Remo cellphones from the accused in the presence of the witnesses under mahazar. At 12.45 p.m., he went to the police station along with the accused and material objects and sent the accused to the judicial custody. He sent the material objects to the court through Form-95. Ex.P15 is the Form-95. P.W.13 enquired Thiru.Manikandan, Tahsildar, Ponneri and recorded his statement. On 6.12.2020, he sent a requisition letter to one Thiru.Mahesh, Manager, HDFC Bank, Madipakkam Branch, recorded his statement and obtained the account statement of the accused. Ex.P16 is the requisition letter. Ex.P17 is the said statement of the accused. On the same day, P.W.13 sent a requisition letter to one Thiru.Murugan, Manager, L & T Finance, recorded his statement and obtained the statement of account with regard to the Honda Active bike. Ex.P18 is the requisition letter. The statement of account is
-16-
Ex.P19. Thereafter, P.W.13 sent a requisition letter to one Thiru.Raja, Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, T.Nagar Branch, recorded his statement and obtained the bank account statement of the defacto complainant Nalini. Further, P.W.13 sent a requisition letter to one Thiru.Ramesh, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Alandur and obtained the bank account statement of the accused Ramesh. On 7.12.2020, he gave a requisition letter to one Thiru.Elumalai, Branch Manager of Union Bank of India, T.Nagar Branch, enquired him and recorded his statement and also obtained the bank account statement of Nalini. Thereafter, he was transferred to some other place. - P.W.14 Thiru.A.Tamilvanan, in his evidence has stated that at
present, he is working as Assistant Commissioner of Police, M.K.B.Nagar range. On 4.12.2020, Thiru.Ramesh, Inspector of Police registered the present case in Cr.No.1167/2020. Thiru.Harikumar, Assistant Commissioner of Police conducted further investigation. On 19.7.2021, when P.W.14 joined duty, he referred the case records and filed Final Report along with alteration report. Ex.P20 is the alteration report. - When the accused were questioned u/s 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. in
respect of incriminating materials appearing against them, through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, he has stated that he sent the legal notice and denied the other evidence. No oral evidence and documents marked on the side of the
-17-
defence. The arguments of both sides were heard. - The point for consideration is:-
Whether the prosecution had proved the offences u/s 417 of IPC r/w
Sec.3(i)(r) and 3(i)(w)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act and u/s 420 of IPC r/w Sec.3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act and u/s 506(i) of IPC r/w 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act as against the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
22 . Point:
Heard both sides. Records perused. - It is the case of the prosecution that the defacto complainant belongs toAdi Dravidar caste and the accused Ramesh belongs to Hindu Karuneegar Caste. In 2012, both had acquaintance with each other and the accused gave false promise that he was unmarried and he is willing to marry the defacto complainant. The accused extracted money and jewels and also property from the defacto complainant. When the defacto complainant asked him to marry her, the accused abused her by referring her caste on 3.9.2020 over phone and on 20.10.202, in the public place at No.605, 8th Street, 2nd Cross Street, the accused abused the defacto complainant by referring her community and told that he will not marry her and threatened her with dire consequences, hence, the accused appears to have committed the offences punishable u/s 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and Sec.294(b), 406, 420, 417, 506(i) of IPC and u/s 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.
-18- - In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution had
preferred to examine P.Ws.1 to 14 and marked Exs.P1 to P27. - The learned Special Public Prosecutor in his written argument would
submit that the accused faces a case for the offences u/s 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and Sec.294(b), 406, 420, 417, 506(i) of IPC and u/s 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and in order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P27. The victim / defacto complainant was examined as P.W.1 and she would depose in respect of the relationship between herself and the accused. The defacto complainant in her evidence has corroborated the contentions and the allegations against the accused, which were mentioned in the complaint. It is the case of the defacto complainant that she had physical relationship with the accused, believing the false promise of the accused to marry her. Also, the defacto complainant / victim in her complaint, 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement and in evidence has clearly stated about the relationship with the accused, false promise made by the accused to marry her, refusal of the accused to marry her because of the community of the defacto complainant / victim and also breach of trust by the accused etc. Further, the defacto complainant / victim would also depose the transactions between herself and the accused and also the execution of blank cheques, promissory notes, handing over of cash and gold jewels etc. The evidence of P.W.1
-19-
would clearly attract the charges framed against the accused. The evidence of P.W.1 Nalini has been corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses, bank official and Investigating Officer. Further, the prosecution has examined the Tahsildars to prove the community of the victim and the accused and also the Bank Managers to establish the transaction between the defacto complainant and the accused. The accused by giving false promise to the victim, had engaged in physical and sexual intercourse with the victim, induced her to handover blank cheques, promissory notes, money, gold jewels and also obtained T.V., Cellphones and Two-wheeler etc. under the guise of marriage. However, the accused refused to marry the victim P.W.1 Nalini by citing her community as a reason. Minor contradictions or discrepancies would not affect the case of the prosecution and the evidence of P.W.1, the victim itself is sufficient to come to a conclusion that the accused is guilty of the charges framed against him. - The learned counsel for the accused would submit in his written
arguments that the charges u/s 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and Sec.294(b), 406, 420, 417, 506(i) of IPC and u/s 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act were framed against the accused. Though the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P27, has miserably failed to prove those charges beyond reasonable doubt. The complaint has been preferred by the defacto complainant belatedly and no explanation has been
-20-
offered by her. The evidence collected by the Investigating Officer has been sent to the court belatedly and those facts would prove that the complaint has been preferred falsely against the accused. Further, the learned counsel would also submit that the evidence of the victim / defacto complainant has not been corroborated by the other witnesses since P.W.2 has not deposed before the court corroborating the complaint, statement and the chief examination of P.W.1. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the hearsay witnesses. L.W.3 Kokila is the interested witness as she is the mother of the defacto complainant. The observation mahazar and the alleged confession of the accused have been fabricated by the Investigating Officer and produced before this court. Some of the witnesses were dispensed with by the prosecution. The prosecution witnesses are the relatives and the neighbours of the defacto complainant / P.W.1 and some other witnesses are the Government Officials and Police Officer. The learned counsel would also submit that the defacto complainant would depose that the accused has abused her by calling her community / caste and it has been recorded in her phone and the same was copied in a C.D. and handed over to the Assistant Commissioner, but no such C.D. has been produced or marked before this court. There is contradictions between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in respect of the allegation against the accused that he had insulted and intimidated the defacto complainant in the public place. There is no evidence to attract the offences u/s 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC. Though the complainant has mentioned about the
-21-
transaction between herself and the accused, it has not been proved by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt. In these circumstances, the accused cannot be held guilty for the offences u/s 406, 420, 417 of IPC. Since the prosecution has failed to prove any of the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the accused deserves to be acquitted from the charges. - The defacto complainant Nalini, D/o.Subramanian, Perambur, Chennai
belongs to Hindu Adi Dravida, which is Scheduled Caste. The accused Ramesh, S/o.Ekambaram belongs to Hindu Karuneegar, which is a Backward Class and those facts are not disputed by the accused. Inspite of that, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1, 6 and 7 to prove the community of the defacto complainant and the accused. P.W.1 Nalini, in her complaint, 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement and in evidence has specifically mentioned that she belongs to Scheduled Caste and also produced Ex.P2 Community Certificate. Also, through the witnesses P.Ws.6 Manikandan and P.W.7 Tmt.Sarala, Tahsildars, the genuineness report regarding the community of the accused and the defacto complainant have been marked as Ex.P4 and P5. Thereby, the prosecution has proved the community of the defacto complainant and the accused and also established that the accused is a non-member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. - The main charges framed against the accused is the offence u/s 417 of
IPC r/w 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act and u/s 420 of IPC r/w 3(2)(va) of
-22-
SC/ST (POA) Act. It is the case of the complainant that she was working as an
Accountant in Bakgiam Wet Grinders company. The accused was working in Gadget World. He used to come to Bakgiam Wet Grinders company and purchase mobile phones. At that time, the P.W.1 and accused Ramesh had friendship with each other. Thereafter, the accused had developed his relationship with the defacto complainant further by suppressing the fact that he has already married and promised her to marry. When the defacto complainant asked for marriage, the accused was said to have replied the defacto complainant by saying that “உன்னைன திருமணம் செ ய்ய மாட்டேடன் . உன்னடோல டே ாி ஆட்கள் கினைடயாது . ஏய் ர டேதவிடியாடேள . ஒரு ர்ிக்கு இவ்வளவு திமிருனா. ஆதிக்க ாதியான எனக்கு எவ்வளவு திமிரு இருக்கும்.” In
continuation of the said act, the accused under the
pretension of marrying the defacto complainant, with dishonest intention to deceive the complainant,
fraudulently obtained a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- , 19 sovereign gold jewels, pronotes and blank cheques and thereby cheated the defacto complainant. - The defacto complainant, in her complaint, has stated that while she
was working in a private concern, the accused used to come to the said company and they had developed friendship with each other and thereafter, both of them loved
-23-
each other. The accused suppressed the fact with the defacto complainant that he had already married. The defacto complainant has further stated in her complaint Ex.P1 that after her switching over to another company, she had a problem with one Murugesan there and it was sorted out with the help of the accused Ramesh. The accused promised her to marry and believing the same, the defacto complainant had continued her relationship with the accused and one day, the accused informed the defacto complainant that since he is going to marry her, he had captured video of the defacto complainant while she was bathing by fixing a camera in the bathroom and the same was mistakenly sent to one Murugesan, Murugesan threatened to publish the same in Zee T.V / Internet and demanded money and it would cause shame to the defacto complainant and Murugesan has to be settled with Rs.12,00,000/- by getting money from the father of Bharani, who is the friend of the defacto complainant. The accused was said to have advised the defacto complainant to obtain loan from the father of Bharani by issuing cheque and to repay the said loan on monthly installments and thereby, the accused has received a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- and 19 sovereign gold jewels and also obtained blank cheques and pronotes. The defacto complainant has also mentioned in her complaint that the accused delayed their marriage from 2019 and thereafter, insulted her by calling her community, abused her with filthy language, but she has not preferred any complaint with the police for the reason that she is going to marry the accused. She had further stated in the complaint
-24-
Ex.P1 that when she spoke to her friend Bharani, it came to know that the accused Ramesh is a married man and it is false that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/from the father of Bharani etc. and also she came to know that the accused had induced her through various persons as financiers and cheated a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- and 19 sovereign gold jewels and also obtained blank cheques and pronotes. When it was questioned by her with the accused, he insulted her and her family and abused them with filthy language and also by referring her community. Further, the accused Ramesh filled up the blank cheque given by the defacto complainant for Rs.7,00,000/- and issued a legal notice and it was suitably replied by her. One day, when the accused met her in the street, he disrespected her and abused and insulted her by referring her community and also refused to marry her. It is also the complaint of the defacto complainant that the accused had threatened her with dire consequences. She would further state that the accused refused to marry her for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste and cheated her to publish the video said to have been recorded by him and also a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- and 19 sovereign gold jewels and also obtained blank cheques and pronotes. The defacto complainant / P.W.1/ Nalini during her evidence before this court has stated all the contentions of Ex.P1 complaint. Apart from that, she would state in her evidence that the accused had induced her to get him LED T.V., Activa Two Wheeler, OPPO (2 cellphones) and Samsung cellphone and also handed over her gold jewels of 19
-25-
sovereign etc. - In respect of the relationship between the defacto complainant and the
accused, the defacto complainant in her complaint, 161(3) Statement and in her evidence has specifically mentioned their relationship. Further, it has been corroborated by P.W.4 Bharani, who has deposed that herself and defacto complainant were working together and at that time, she used to see the accused and the defacto complainant Nalini together and on enquiry, the defacto complainant has stated that both of them loved each other. After three or four months, when defacto complainant called her over phone and enquired about the loan, said to have been obtained from her father by the accused, she informed her after verifying her father that no such loan was offered by her father as stated by the accused Ramesh and also informed the defacto complainant that the accused Ramesh is a married man. Also, P.W.2 Mani, relative of P.W.1, in his evidence has stated that the accused used to drop the defacto complainant with his two-wheeler and there was a quarrel between the accused and the defacto complainant on 20.10.2020 in the street, wherein the accused has abused, insulted the defacto complainant by referring her community and he had witnessed the same. Also, P.W.2 Mani, deposed before this court that Nalini informed him about her relationship with the accused and they are going to marry and also handing over of money, jewels, blank cheques, ATM card etc. - P.W.3 Nirmal Prabhu is the brother of the defacto complainant Nalini.
-26-
He would depose before this court that he heard from his sister Nalini about the relationship between herself and the accused, handing over of TV, bike, mobile phones, gold ornaments and also the refusal of the accused to marry the defacto complainant etc. P.W.3 Nirmal Prabhu is only a hearsay witness. P.W.5, Mohan is the witness for the Observation Mahazar, who had deposed only in respect of the preparation of Observation Mahazar Ex.P3 by the Investigating Officer. On perusal of the complaint Ex.P1, the statement of the complainant and her evidence, it would reveal that the accused and the defacto complainant had developed friendship at first and after the help by the accused in favour of the defacto complainant to get rid of the problem with one Murugesan, who had worked with the defacto complainant, she trusted the accused and both of them loved each other. The accused has promised the defacto complainant that he would marry her and thereby strengthened his relationship with her. In respect of the relationship between the defacto complainant and the accused, the best evidence would be the evidence of the victim, the defacto complainant / P.W.1. However, P.W.4 Bharani has also corroborated by saying that both the accused and the defacto complainant loved each other and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 has been corroborated by P.W.2 Mani, since he would depose that the accused used to drop the defacto complainant at her house with his two-wheeler. In these circumstances, it is to be mentioned that the accused had one point of time, has admitted the relationship with the defacto complainant during cross-examination of
-27-
P.W.1, it was suggested with her that the accused, being an affluent person, she had financial transaction with him and it was denied by the defacto complainant. However, it has been admitted by the accused through his suggestion that he had relationship with the defacto complainant. Further, the accused is not a colleague or co-worker of the defacto complainant and it has not been explained by the accused that how he knew the defacto complainant and had financial transaction with her. It has also been suggested with P.W.1 Nalini that the accused had no connection with the defacto complainant and it was also denied by her. - It is the defence of the accused that the defacto complainant had
borrowed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from the accused and he had offered a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- for which, the defacto complainant had executed a promissory note and issued a cheque for the said amount on 11.9.2020. The defacto complainant denied those facts and also stated that she had handed over a blank cheque to the accused, which has been misused by the accused and filed a complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. As already stated, the defacto complainant is not a known person or colleague to the accused before the alleged relationship. Also, the accused has not let in any oral or documentary evidence that he is financially well off and he was able to lent a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- to the defacto complainant on cheque and the defacto complainant requested him on several times for loan. Even the accused has not explained the nature of job or his financial capacity etc. to show that he is an affluent person to lent
-28-
a huge sum to the defacto complainant. On the other hand, the defacto complainant has not only mentioned in her complaint, statement and evidence about the handing over of money, gold jewels, T.V. Mobile Phones, bike, pronote and blank cheque etc. to the accused and those facts have been established through oral and documentary evidence. - P.W.1 Nalini, the defacto complainant would depose before this court
that in 2013, the accused demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- for processing fee to start a business and also instructed her to bring her jewels from her house and he would return the same within a week. Therefore, in March, 2013, she brought a necklace, Aaram, totally 5 sovereign from her house and gave it to the accused. After a month, when she asked for return of the jewels, he had informed that he will return the jewels after his recovery from the financial crisis. In an another occasion, in the name of settling a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- to Murugesan, who said to have threatened to publish the video of the defacto complainant in Zee TV / Internet, the accused informed the defacto complainant that he will get loan from the father of Bharani, who is the friend of the defacto complainant and also instructed the defacto complainant to repay the same in monthly instalments and believing the words of the accused, the defacto complainant had issued a blank cheque, white paper and also her ATM Card to the accused. The salary account and bank account of the defacto complainant were also said to have been maintained by the accused. In 2016, under
-29-
the guise of repaying the said loan, the accused was said to have obtained gold chain of 3 sovereign and in 2017, a gold chain of 3 sovereign and also on the basis of the Fixed Deposit, the complainant had obtained a sum of Rs.1,83,000/- as loan, withdrew the same and handed over to the accused. The accused was said to have assured the defacto complainant that he has settled the loan with the father of Bharani, but, actually the accused has not borrowed any loan or debt from the father of Bharani or anybody else and he had induced the defacto complainant to bring her jewels and to withdraw the FD amount etc. in the name of repaying the unavailed loan. It has been corroborated by P.W.4 Bharani, who is the friend of the defacto complainant since she would depose that the accused has not borrowed any amount or loan or debt from her father and she only informed the said fact to the defacto complainant, including the fact that the accused has already married. Those facts would disclose the fact that the accused himself has retained the money and jewels given by the defacto complainant. Further, the defacto complainant in her statement u/s 161(3) Cr.P.C. and in evidence has stated that at the request of the accused she had purchased Sony LED T.V. for Rs.27,000/- from Giriyas (Ex.P22) and given to him. On 19.8.2018, the defacto complainant was said to have purchased a Samsung mobile phone for the accused by availing IDFC Bank loan, on 12.9.2019, she has purchased OPPO Reno 22 Smartphone for the accused by availing loan from Capitalfirst for Rs.29,000/- and also purchased an OPPO A31 Black mobile phone for
-30-
the accused by availing loan from TATA Capital of Rs.12,000/- She had produced the three receipts for the purchase of the same mobile phones, which were marked as Ex.P23 series. Ex.P24 is the PAYTM payment, Bank Account Statement of the defacto complainant for the period from 23.10.2018 to 2.7.2020, through which, she had transferred a sum of Rs.75,619/- to the account of the accused through UPI. Also, the defacto complainant was said to have given him two gold rings to pledge in order to pay for the loan and the accused was pledged the said jewels on 13.1.2020 for Rs.6,700/- The receipt for the same has been marked as Ex.P25 and it is in the name of the accused. Though the prosecution has marked Ex.P22 to P25 to establish the contention of the defacto complainant that she had purchased LED T.V., Mobile Phones and also handing over of gold jewels to pledge and the transaction through UPI and the purchase of Honda Activa Two wheeler by getting loan with IDFC Bank and also by applying personal loan, the accused has not denied those facts. Though the said facts were not disclosed in the complaint Ex.P1, the defacto complainant, in her statement and evidence had clearly stated about those facts. In order to prove the availing of loan, purchase of house hold articles and also to establish the fact of availing loan from the Fixed Deposit of Rs.1,80,000/-, the date and which it was deposited, she had produced her bank account statement and also the bank account statement of the accused. In order to establish the said fact, the prosecution has examined P.W.9 Raja Ranjith Kumar, P.W.10 Ramesh, P.W.11 Elumalai, the Bank
-31-
Managers concerned and also through the said witnesses and through the Investigating Officer P.W.13 Thiru.Harikumar, Ex.P8 to P12 and Ex.P16 to P19 were marked. Though the prosecution has examined the Bank Managers and the Investigating Officers and also produced the Bank Statements of the defacto complainant and the accused to prove the transactions between these two, it was not at all denied by the accused. Also, no explanation has been offered by the accused for the transaction of money from the account of defacto complainant to himself and also the payment of EMI from his account for the Honda Activa Two-wheeler, which is in the name of the defacto complainant, though Ex.P27 has been marked for the same. Also, it is one of the contentions of the defacto complainant that her mother gave an amount to deposit in the Fixed Deposit and the accused has helped her to deposit the amount in F.D. and on the same day, the defacto complainant was said to have availed a loan of Rs.1,80,000/- and handed over to the accused. This fact was also not denied by the accused either through cross-examination or during the 313(1) (b) Cr.P.C. questioning. Further, the Honda Activa 125cc bearing Registration No.TN-05/BZ-6329, Oppo and Remo mobile phones were recovered from the accused on 5.12.2020 in the presence of Suresh and Swaminathan. The two-wheeler is in the name of the defacto complainant and therefore, the defacto complainant got the temporary custody of the said vehicle. One of the witnesses for the mahazar Suresh was examined as P.W.8 and he would depose that the accused was arrested on
-32-
5.12.2020, his voluntary confession was recorded and thereafter, the Investigating Officer has recovered the Honda Activa Two-wheeler and two mobile phones from the accused. P.W.8 along with Swaminathan have signed in the confession of the accused and also in the recovery mahazar. The said seizure mahazar and the Form-95 have been marked as Ex.P7 and P15. It has been established by the prosecution that the Honda Activa Two-wheeler and two mobile phones were seized from the accused in the presence of two witnesses. The said two-wheeler and mobile phones are said to be in the name of the defacto complainant and the accused has not claimed the same. Even through cross-examination, no suggestion had been raised as to the fact that how the accused was in possession of those properties, which are belong to the defacto complainant. By producing the R.C. Book, the defacto complainant only got back the two-wheeler from the court for interim custody on execution of bond. This facts have been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.8 and the Investigating Officer. The accused has not come forward to give any explanation for the same. In these circumstances, the court could very well presume that at the inducement of the accused, the two-wheeler and the mobile phones have been purchased by the defacto complainant and delivered to the accused when they were in relationship. - Also, at the request of the accused, the defacto complainant was said to
have given her Necklace, Aaram, Chain, Ring, totally 8 ¼ sovereign of gold jewels to repay the loan and the accused has sold the jewels with Lalitha Jewellers and said to
-33-
have repaid the loan, though he has not availed any loan. Thereby, the accused fraudulently induced the defacto complainant to deliver those jewels towards the repayment of loan. - The defacto complainant, in her complaint Ex.P1 has stated that since
the accused was going to marry her, he has captured the video without her knowledge, while she was taking bath by fixing camera in the bathroom and it was accidentally sent to Murugesan, Murugesan threatened to publish the same in the Zee TV / Internet and he demanded a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- and induced her to settle the said amount. In her statement u/s 161(3) Cr.P.C. and evidence, the defacto complainant has stated that in 2015, in order to celebrate valentines day, the accused brought her to Hotel Ganga International, Kodambakkam, where he insisted and compelled her to have sexual intercourse with him under the guise of marriage. Though the said fact has not been specifically mentioned in the complaint, it could be presumed from the contention that the accused has captured video of the defacto complainant by fixing camera in the bathroom and the said incident was happened at the Ganga International Hotel. Therefore, the specific non-mentioning of the fact of staying at the Gange International Hotel cannot be considered as a fatal to the prosecution case and for the only reason, the entire evidence of the victim cannot be rejected. - The accused developed intimacy with the defacto complainant and
-34-
tactfully gained confidence of the victim, which at the later point turned into love after the proposal by the accused and also the promise of marriage given by the accused. Pursuant to the false promise, the defacto complainant had engaged in physical / sexual relationship on several occasions. By using the same, the accused was said to have taken obscene vidoes of the victim without her knowledge while she was bathing. Again, the accused has informed the defacto complainant / victim that he had accidentally sent the obscene video of the defacto complainant to one Murugesan, who was the co-worker of the defacto complainant and he threatened to upload the obscene videos into social media. By using the name of Murugesan, who is a third party and also in the name of repaying loan to the father of Bharani, the accused has demanded amounts on different occasions and obtained the same from
the defacto complainant, nearly about Rs.20,00,000/-, and also induced her to deliver 19 sovereign gold jewels including the valuable security like, blank cheques and promissory note. More over, whenever the defacto complainant / victim asked for marriage with the accused, he had protracted his promise of marriage and in turn, insulted, intimidated, abused, humiliated her by calling her or by using her caste name and used words, actions and gestures of sexual nature against her, knowing fully well that she belongs to Scheduled Caste. Further, the accused has threatened the family members of the defacto complainant with dire consequences.
-35- - In order to constitute an offence u/s 420 of IPC, the following
ingredients are to be satisfied :
(i) Deception of a person either by making a false or misleading
representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission.
(ii) Fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any
property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induced that person so deceived to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceive and :
(ii) Such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to
that person in body, mind or reputation or property. - In other words, to constitute an offence u/s 420 of IPC, there should not
only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived to deliver any property to any person. As such, the accused, though he has already married, he had made false and misleading representation to the defacto complainant as if he was not married so far and promised to marry her. Further, in the name of one Murugesan, who is a third party, with dishonest intention, he had threatened the defacto complainant that the obscene video of would be published in the social media by the said Murugesan and induced her to part with money in order to settle Murugesan. Also, with the false representation and promise to marry the defacto complainant, the accused had
-36-
induced her to deliver the properties, like the TV, mobile phones, two-wheeler, jewels, money etc. and to consent her for sexual relationship with him, which she would not do if she was not deceived by the accused. Such an act of the accused caused damage or harm to the defacto complainant to her body, mind, reputation and property, since the accused has refused to marry her for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste. The act of the accused suppressing the fact that he has already married is to be considered as a cheating as per Section 415 of IPC, punishable u/s 417 of IPC. In addition to that, the accused dishonestly and with fraudulent intention, cheated the defacto complainant and thereby induced her to deliver money, jewels and household articles, vehicle and valuable securities and thereby, he has committed the offence under Sec.420 of IPC. - In respect of the charge u/s 3(1)(w)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act, the defacto
complainant has stated in his complaint, 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement and in evidence that the accused, under the pretension of marrying her, took her to the hotel and induced her to have sexual intercourse with him stating that he is going to marry her and without her knowledge, took videos while she was taking bath. There cannot be any independent evidence for the said occurrence and the evidence of P.W.1, the victim is sufficient to prove the same. Therefore, the court come to the conclusion by relying on the only evidence of the defacto complainant Nalini, the accused has committed the offence u/s 3(1)(w)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
-37- - The learned counsel for the accused would submit that there was a
delay in preferring the complaint and in sending the documents to the court by the Investigating Officer and those delay has not been explained by the prosecution. The defacto complainant and the accused were in the relationship from 2015 and only after hearing from her friend Bharani, the defacto complainant came to know the fact that the accused has married and he had induced her to deliver the properties, including cash and valuable security in the name of settlement to Murugesan and repayment of loan to the father of Bharani, thereafter, the defacto complainant issued a notice and the complaint has been forwarded. Further, the accused has not stated that in which way he was prejudiced to the effect that the documents have been sent to the court belatedly. It is the not the case of the defence that the accused was roped into the case falsely after much deliberation. Therefore, the court has arrived at a conclusion that the delay in preferring the complaint and alleged delay in sending the documents to the court does not affect the case of the prosecution at large. - From the above discussions, the court comes to a conclusion that the
prosecution was able to establish that the accused suppressed the fact with the defacto complainant that he has already married, promised her to marry, induced her to have sexual relationship with him and also to deliver the properties, like money, jewels, two wheeler, household articles, which she would not do if she was not deceived by the accused. The act of the accused caused damage, harm to the defacto complainant
-38-
to her body, mind, reputation and property, since the accused has refused to marry her for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste and thereby, he has committed the offences u/s 417 r/w 3(1)(w)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act and u/s 420 of IPC. Admittedly, the the defacto complainant belongs to Adi Dravidar community, which is a scheduled caste and the accused Ramesh belongs to Hindu Karuneegar, which is a Backward Community. Since, the court has come to a conclusion that the accused has committed an offence u/s 420 of IPC and therefore, he is liable to punished for the offences u/s 420 and u/s 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act. - Further, the accused has been charged for the offence u/s 3(1)(r), 3(1)
(w)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act. As already stated, the victim / defacto complainant /
P.W.1 Nalini belongs to Scheduled Caste and the accused Ramesh belongs to
Backward Class. The accused knew the community of the defacto complainant and it is not the defence of the accused that he does not know the community of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant, in her complaint has specifically stated that after coming to know that the accused has already married and has cheated her by saying that he got loan from the father of Bharani, had asked him to pay the loan amount, for which, he refused. Further, when the defacto complainant requested him to marry her, he was said to have abused her by stating that gu njtoahns. cdf;F mt;tst[ jpkuh. xU gur;rpf;F ,t;tst[ jpku; ,Uf;Fk;nghJ. cau;e;j rhjpahd vdf;F vt;tst[ jpkpu; ,Uf;Fk;. vd;id jpUkzk; bra;a nguhirg;gl;l gu ehna. cd;id ehd;
-39-
jpUkzk; bra;akhl;nld;/ P.W.2 Mani would also depose that the accused has abused, insulted, intimidated the defacto complainant in the street, where they lived. P.W.2 Mani is the neighbour and relative of P.W.1. However, there is no evidence to show that the alleged occurrence took place within public view and there is no independent evidence for the same. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the prosecution has not proved the charges u/s 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act. Though the accused has been charged for the offences u/s 506(i) of IPC and u/s 4 of TNPHW, there is no sufficient and acceptable evidence to prove those offences. No independent witnesses has given their evidence to attract these offences. In these circumstances, the accused cannot be held guilty for the said offences. - The prosecution was able to prove through oral and documentary
evidence of the charges against the accused u/s 417 r/w 3(1)(w)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act and 420 of IPC r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the court comes to the conclusion that the accused has committed those offences, for which the accused has to be dealt with. - When the accused is questioned u/s 235(2) Cr.P.C. about the sentences
to be imposed on him, he has stated that ehd; ve;j jg;g[k; bra;atpyi; y/ - The statement of the accused is perused. It is not only a heinous offence
committed against the individual, i.e., P.W.1 Nalini, but it is the offence against the society. The accused has committed those offences only because of the reason that
-40-
the victim P.W.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste and therefore, considering the grave nature of offences, the court is of the view that no leniency could be shown in favour of the accused and he has to be punished proportionately for the offences committed by them. Considering the plea of the accused and nature of offences committed by the accused, this court imposed the following sentence :
(i) For the offence u/s 417 of IPC, the accused is sentenced to undergo One Year simple imprisonment.
(ii) For the offence u/s 3(1)(w)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act, the accused is
sentenced to undergo Three Years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment.
(iii) For the offence u/s 420 of IPC the accused is sentenced to undergo Five Years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo one month of Simple Imprisonment.
(iv) For the offence u/s 3(1)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, the accused is
sentenced to undergo Five Years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo one month of Simple Imprisonment.
(v) Total fine amount is Rs.15,000/-
(vi) The above said sentences shall run concurrently.
(vii) The period of incarceration already undergone by the accused is given
set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C.
-41-
(viii) No material objects produced in this case.
(ix) The accused is not found guilty for the offences u/s Sec.3(i)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act and u/s 506(i) of IPC r/w 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and he is acquitted from the said charges u/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C.
(x) The Honda Activa Two-wheeler, Oppo cellphones – 2 Nos. andSamsung cellphone – 1 No. were already been given interim custody to the defacto complainant on execution of bonds. The defacto complainant shall retain those properties and the bonds executed by her is ordered to be cancelled after the appeal time is over.
Dictated to the stenographer typed by him directly, corrected and
pronounced by me in the Open Court this, the 31st day of July, 2024.
Digitally signed by S ALLI
S ALLI Date: 2024.07.31 17:58:29
+0530
Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai. List of Prosecution side witnesses:-
PW1 Nalini
PW2 Mani
PW3 Nirmal Prabhu
PW4 Bharani
PW5 Mohan
PW6 Manikandan
PW7 Sarala
-42-
PW8 Suresh
PW9 Raja Ranjith Kumar
PW10 Ramesh
PW11 Elumalai
PW12 Ramesh
PW13 Harikumar
PW14 Tamilvanan
List of Prosecution side Exhibits:-
Exhibit No. Date Description of Document
Ex.P1 4.12.2020 Complaint
Ex.P2 — Copy of Community Certificate of Nalini
Ex.P3 4.12.2020 Observation Mahazar
Ex.P4 9.2.2021 Genuineness report regarding Community Certificate of Ramesh
Ex.P5 15.12.2020 Genuineness report regarding Community Certificate of Nalini
Ex.P6 5.12.2020 Signature of Suresh in Confession Statement of accused
Ex.P7 5.12.2020 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P8 — Requisition Letter
Ex.P9 13.8.2018 to
30.11.2020 Account statement of Nalini from 13/08/18 to 30/11/2020 in the Bank of Baroda, T.Nagar Branch
Ex.P10 — Requisition Letter
Ex.P11 — Account statement of Ramesh from 19/09/2015 to 16/12/2020 in the Union Bank of India, Alandur Branch
Ex.P12 — Account Transaction statement of Nalini from 18/09/2015 to 15/09/2020 in the Union Bank of India, T.Nagar Branch
Ex.P13 FIR
Ex.P14 4.12.2020 Rough Sketch
Ex.P15 5.12.2020 Form 95
-43-
Ex.P16 11.10.2020 Requisition Letter
Ex.P17 — Accounts statement of Ramesh in HDFC Bank, Madipakkam Branch
Ex.P18 7.12.2020 Requisition Letter
Ex.P19 8.12.2020 Statement of accounts relates to Activa in L&T Finance
Ex.P20 — Alteration Report
Ex.P21 4.12.2020 Proceedings of Deputy Commissioner
Ex.P22 29.3.2019 Bill for the purchase of SONY LED TV-Bill Rs.27,001 from GIRIAS through HP from IDFC First Bank Ltd.
Ex.P23 19.8.2019 Invoice for Samsung A50, OPPO(2) – 3 Phone Bills
Ex.P24 28.6.2019 to
30.9.2020 Paytm Bank Account Statement
Ex.P25 13.1.2020 Pawn ticket – C.R.C.
Ex.P26 11.12.2020 CD with 65(B) Certificate
Ex.P27 18.11.2020 Bill (Ramesh தவனைண கட்டிய ில் நளினி இரு க்கர வாகனத்திற்கு)
List of Material Objects:-
- Nil –
List of Defence side witness and Material Objects :--Nil-List of Defence side documents :-
-Nil-
S ALLI Digitally signed byS ALLIDate: 2024.07.3117:58:36 +0530
Principal Sessions Judge,
Chennai.
-44-
