IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:28.04.2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.SUDANTHIRAM CRL.R.C.No.402 of 2010 1. Haridoss 2. Pichai @ Pachaiyappan 3. Elumalai 4. Shiva .. Petitioners/Accused 1 to 4 Vs. State: rep. by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Brammadesam Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District. (Crime No.182 of 2002). .. Respondent/Complainant Prayer:- Petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C against the Judgment passed in Crl.A.No.14 of 2005, dated 27.11.2009 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai, convicting the petitioners under Section 509 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment, confirming the trial Court's order dated 28.02.2005, passed in C.C.No.231 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cheyyar. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Balakrishnan For Respondent : Mr.N.Kumanan, Government Advocate (Crl.side) - - - - - ORDER The revision petitioners herein are the accused in C.C.No.231 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cheyyar and they were convicted for an offence under Section 509 I.P.C. and each one were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The said conviction and sentence were also confirmed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai in Crl.A.No.14 of 2005. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioners have preferred this Criminal Revision Petition. 2. This criminal revision petition has come up before this Court for admission. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this revision petition is now taken up for disposal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- On 20.08.2002 at about 5.00 p.m. P.W.2, the daughter of P.W.1 was grazing cattle at Vada Illuppai Village. At that time, accused 1 to 4 came together and humiliated P.W.2 by uttering words that as to whether Va; Kk;jh$;. cyf mHfpah. Va; rj;jpah eP R{g;gh; gpfh;. R{g;gh; kapny. R{g;gh; !;lhh;/ P.W.2 went to her house and reported the matter to her mother. The accused also followed her and came to her house and again used abusive language. Accused 1 and 2 also threatened P.W.2 and her mother by wielding a knife. 4. In order to establish the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. On behalf of the accused, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 5. The Trial Court, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the accused from the charges under Sections 294 (b) and 506(ii) I.P.C. but convicted them only under Section 509 I.P.C. and the said conviction was also confirmed by the Appellate Court. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that he is confining his argument with regard to the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioners/accused. It is further submitted that all the accused have now filed individual affidavits before this Court seeking pardon. Under such circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the accused may be let off invoking the Probation of Offenders Act and release them on probation. 7. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side). 8. This Court has considered the submissions made by both the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 9. As per the evidence of P.W.2, the accused used the words on seeing her that she was "Kk;jh$; . and she was R{g;gh; !;lhh;" and the accused questioned as to whether she was queen of beauty and thereafter all of them laughed. From the evidence of P.W.2, it appears that they have outraged her modesty. The occurrence had taken place in the year 2002 and now more than seven years had elapsed. It appears that after the arrest of the accused, they have been in jail for one or two days. It appears from the Judgment of the trial Court before sentencing the accused to imprisonment the trial Court has not given any specific reasons as required under Section 361 of Cr.P.C. for not invoking the Probation of Offenders Act. 10. It is pertinent to point out Section 361 of Cr.P.C., which reads as follows:- "361. Special reasons to be recorded in certain cases. Where in any case the Court could have dealt with- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (a) an accused person under section 360 or under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), or (b) a youthful offender under the Children Act, 1960 (60 of 1960), or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders, but has not done so, it shall record in its judgment the special reasons for not having done so." 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that as the petitioners are not involved in any other case and also considering their young age at the time of occurrence, this Court is of the considered view that all the petitioners could be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Accordingly, though conviction imposed on the accused is confirmed, the petitioners are directed to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The petitioners are directed to appear before the trial Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to execute a bond for a period of six months that they would maintain peace and display good behavior. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar jrl To 1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai. 2. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cheyyar. 3. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Brammadesam Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District. 4. The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras. 1 cc To Mr.R.Balakrishnan, Advocate, SR.28601 CRL.R.C.No.402 of 2010 AKR(CO) sra 26/05/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/