Vijayakumar, M/19/2014 v. State By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.11.2016
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM Crl.R.C.No.1301 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.Nos.11682 and 11683 of 2016 Vijayakumar S/o.Thangarasu .. Revision Petitioner/Appellant/ Accused vs.
State by The Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station Attur, Salem District .. Respondent/Respondent/Complainant Criminal Revision filed under Section 397(1) and 401 (1) Cr.P.C. against the judgment of learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, passed in C.A.No.21 of 2016 on 20.09.2016, confirming the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Salem, passed in C.C.No.60 of 2014 on 29.01.2016.
For Petitioner :
Mr.B.Vasudevan For Respondent :
Mr.K.Madhan Government Advocate (Crl.side)
O R D E R
This revision is preferred against two concurrent judgments of the Courts below convicting the petitioner for offence u/s. 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, sentencing him to undergo 1 year R.I and fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d 3 months S.I.
2. The prosecution case was that on 14.07.2014 at about 05.45 p.m., when P.W.2 Ramya was returning from school, the petitioner/accused teased her. Thereby, petitioner harassed P.W.2. On 15.07.2014, while P.W.1 and P.W.4 father and mother of P.W.2 questioned the petitioner about his teasing P.W.2, the petitioner threatened them saying that he will kill them and will kidnap P.W.2. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid informing commission of offences u/s.3 of the Women Harassment Act, 2002 and 506(i) IPC. The same was taken on file in C.C.No.60 of 2014 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Addl. Mahila Court, Salem.
3. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and marked four exhibits. The defence marked one exhibit.
4. Under judgment dated 29.01.2016 in C.C.No.60 of 2014, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Addl. Mahila Court, Salem, acquitted the petitioner in respect of charge u/s. 506(i) IPC whilst convicting him for offence u/s. 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 sentencing him to undergo 1 year R.I and fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d 3 months S.I. There against, petitioner/accused preferred C.A.No.21 of 2016 on the file of learned II Additional District Judge, Salem, which came to be dismissed under judgment dated 20.09.2016. Hence, this revision.
5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate [Crl.side].
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as against Ex.P.1- complaint informing that the petitioner/accused on 15.07.2014 at about 4 p.m challenged the defacto complainant/P.W.1 raising the question if the victim was a girl of great beauty and informing that he would abduct her, the petitioner has been charged of having teased the victim girl questioning her beauty.
7. It is not in dispute that both petitioner/accused and P.W.1 and the victim girl/P.W.2 are immediate relatives. The prosecution case is of the occurrence having taken place in an open field. Following the dictum of this Court in CDJ 2012 MHC 2168, ANBAZHAGAN Vs. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALLIKARANAI POLICE STATION, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRCIT, where it has been held as follows:-
"To attract the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment Women Act,1998 offence must have taken place at a place particularly covered by the Section. A private dwelling house is not one of such places Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act,1998 reads as follows: "4.penalty for(harassment or women) whoever commits or participates in or abets (harassment of women) in or within the precincts of any educational institution, temple or other place of worship, bus stop, road, railway station, cinema thereto, park, beach, place of festival, public service vehicle or vessel or any other place shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than thousand rupees."
This Court by its order dated 25.10.2010 in Crl.O.P.No.13501 of 2010 in Gouresh Mehra v. The State Rep. By Tr has held as follows:
"This Court is of the considered opinion that the words ' any other place' found in Section 4 are to be read 'ejusdem generis'. The Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 when originally enacted consisted of 10 Sections and came into force on 30.07.1998. The offences under Section 4-A Harassment death, 4-B been included under subsequent amendments of the year 2002.
Confining ourselves to the offence contemplated under Section 4 and looking into the objects and reasons of the enactment not towards informing ourselves of the amplitude of the Act but towards understanding the idea behind it, we find that the enactment was intended as a measure to eradicate eve teasing in public places. The Act while prescribing a penalty for harassment under Section 4 restricts the same to harassment committed at particular places. Proceeding further, we find, that under Section 5 and 6, responsibilities are cast upon persons in charge of educational institutions, temple or other places of worship, cinema theatre or any other precinct and upon the crew of public service vehicle or vessel.
This Court considers it reasonable to hold that Section 4 of the Act was meant to deal with offences
occurring in the places informed or in places of like nature. If not so read, the mention of the particular places in Section 4 would be rendered redundant and such could not have been the legislative intent. To put it differently, if the intent was to attract punishment for harassment at any and every places, Section 4 simply could have read as follows:
"4.Penalty for harassment of women-whoever commits or participates in or abets harassment of women in any place shall be punished.....................
7. In Kochuni v. State of Madras and Kerala, AIR 1960 SC 1080, it has been explained that the rule of 'ejusdem generis'
was that when general words follow particular and specific words of the same nature, the general words must be confined to the things of the same kind as those specified. It was further observed that it is clearly laid down by decided cases that the specific words must be form a distinct genus or category. It is not an inviolable rule or law, but it is only permissible inference in the absence of an indication to the contrary. In Lila Vati Bai v.
State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 521, it is informed that the rule of 'ejusdem generis' is intended to be applied where general words have been used following particular and specific words of the same nature on the established rule of construction that the legislature presumed to use the general words in a restricted sense; that is to say, as belonging to the same genus as the particular and specific words. Such a restricted meaning has to be given to words of general import only where the context of the whole scheme of legislation requires it. But where the context and the object and mischief of the enactment do not require such restricted meaning to be attached to words of general import, it becomes necessary to give a plan and ordinary meaning."
For the above said reasons, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
8. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the both the courts below is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him and bail bond, if any, executed by him shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner shall be refunded to him. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To
1. II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem 2 The Principal District and Session Judge, Salem
3. The Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Salem 4 Do thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem 5 The Sub Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Attur, Salem District 6 The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras +1cc to Mr.B. Vasudevan, Advocate, S.R.No.63757 ev(CO) md(10/12/2016) Crl.R.C.No.1301 of 2016