Madras High Court

S.Ve.Shekar vs State Represented By on 2 January, 2025

Author: P.Velmurugan

Bench: P.Velmurugan

                                                                                     Crl.R.C.No.497 of 2024

                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  Orders Reserved on : 17.12.2024

                                                 Orders Pronounced on : 02.01.2025

                                                               Coram:

                                          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                                       Crl.R.C.No.497 of 2024
                                                                 and
                                                      Crl.M.P.No.4733 of 2024
                                                                  --

                     S.Ve.Shekar                                                               .. Petitioner
                                                                 Vs.
                     State Represented by
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     Cyber Crime Cell, Central Crime Branch,
                     No.132, Commissioner Office Building,
                     EVK Sampath Road, Vepery,
                     Periyamet, Chennai-600 007.                                            .. Respondent



                                  Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with Section 401
                     Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment in C.C.No.62 of 2019, dated
                     19.02.2024 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Additional Special Court for
                     trial of criminal cases related to MP's and MLA's of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 001
                     and acquit the petitioner herein against the charges under Sections 504, 509 of
                     IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act,
                     2002.


                                        For petitioner : Mr.Venkatesh Mahadevan
                                        For respondent: Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

                     Page No.1/14


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                       Crl.R.C.No.497 of 2024



                                                                ORDER

Criminal Revision Case is filed praying to set aside the judgment in

C.C.No.62 of 2019, dated 19.02.2024 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge,

Additional Special Court for trial of criminal cases related to MP's and MLA's of

Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 001 and acquit the petitioner herein against the

charges under Sections 504, 509 of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu

Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

2. The respondent filed charge-sheet against the petitioner under Sections

504, 505(1)(c) and 509 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of

Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and the same was taken cognizance of in

C.C.No.62 of 2019.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had posted certain

derogatory objectionable comment/message against women journalists and

P.W.2, in his Facebook social media posting and such message posting was done

with an intention to humiliate and destroy human values of feminine gender, in

the media field and thereby, public peace and tranquillity was affected and

therefore, the petitioner had committed the offence(s) under various provisions

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

of the IPC and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The

investigating officer had initially filed the final report before IInd Metropolitan

Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and in view of the petitioner being a former

Member of Legislative Assembly, representing Mylapore Constituency during the

year 2006-2011, the case was thereafter transmitted to the Assistant Sessions

Court, Additional Special Court for trial of Criminal cases related to the elected

MPs and MLAs of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court did not

notice that there are serious lapses in the investigation and the prosecution failed

to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts. None of the prosecution

witnesses, was able to clearly state even the basic facts regarding the aspect of

when the alleged message was forwarded by the petitioner and as to when it

was deleted. Further, the original forwarded message was never produced before

the trial Court by the prosecution and as such, the contents were actually never

seen by the trial Court. Moreover, the trial Court erred in relying on the screen-

shot of the alleged forwarded message, for which, no certificate under Section

65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, which was produced by the prosecution,

thereby rendering the alleged screen-shot inadmissible in evidence.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the trial Court

failed to note that the prosecution failed to establish the authenticity of the

alleged screen-shot of the forwarded message through scientifically established

means. The trial Court did not consider the factum of inconsistency and

unreliable statements of the witnesses, which case serious and grave doubt on

the case of the prosecution. The prosecution's failure to seize the electronic

devices belonging to the petitioner, resulted in no direct evidence of the contents

of the alleged message forwarded by the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the trial

Court had overlooked the important fact that the original author of the alleged

message was not arrayed as that of the petitioner, even though the prosecution

even at the very inception of receiving the complaint, was fully aware of the

undeniable facts. Even though the petitioner tendered unconditional apology for

having forwarded a message, the contents of the said message allegedly

produced before the trial Court, as a screen-shot, had not been admitted by the

petitioner and it is the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt

that the alleged scree-shot produced before the trial Court, was actually a

screen-shot of the original message, which the prosecution did not prove.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the trial Court did

not notice that there are two private complaints in C.C.No.15 of 2023 and

C.C.No.16 of 2023, which were withdrawn by the complainants by merely

accepting the apology from the petitioner, thereby proving that the petitioner

never had any criminal intention or mens-rea to commit any such offence much

less the offences arrayed by the prosecution. None of the prosecution witnesses

including the investigating officer, spoke about the petitioner, having any

intention much less criminal intention in forwarding the alleged message.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the trial Court

erred in relying on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2023 (4) SCC

1 (Kaushal Kishor Vs. State of U.P. and others), since neither the facts of the

said case, nor the principles enunciated therein apply to the case of the

petitioner, who neither delivered hate speech, nor had any criminal intention to

defame anyone, much less the women in Press and Media. Lack of

authentication of the alleged screen-shot of the message marked as Ex.P-5,

unaccompanied by a Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act,

affects the case of the prosecution. Moreover, the inconsistent statement of the

prosecution witnesses regarding crucial facts and details of the case, casts

serious and irretrievable doubt on the case of the prosecution. Ultimately, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the petitioner may be acquitted

of all the charges framed against him.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that Section 65-B of the

Indian Evidence Act, had not been complied with and no proper

certificate/authenticity certificate is filed as such. Learned counsel further

contended that the incriminating circumstances were not put before the

petitioner and no explanation in that regard has been obtained from him while

he was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is

perversity in appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and non-compliance of

the statutory provisions under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, vitiates

the judgment passed by the trial Court. Therefore, he prayed that the judgment

of conviction and sentence may be set aside and this revision petition may be

allowed.

11. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

appearing for the respondent submitted that the revision petitioner, through

Twitter, re-affirmed the reputation of P.W.2/de-facto complainant and other

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

female journalists. Even on seeing the same, everyone raised question and even

the journalists agitated against the petitioner in front of their house also and

thereafter, the petitioner had also removed the Twitter message and tendered

his apology, and therefore, though the petitioner has stated that he is not the

author of Twitter message, whereas, he forwarded the same and tendered his

apology. When once he had admitted that he forwarded the message to some

other person and also during the cross-examination before P.W.2, the defence

counsel had also put a question, which shows that the petitioner has accepted

his posting in the media, but however, he only denied the authorship and

tendered apology. The de-facto complainant did not accept that he had filed a

complaint, based on which, a case was registered against the petitioner.

12. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) further contended

that by examining 7 witnesses on the side of prosecution, especially, P.Ws.1 to 3

have categorically stated about the forwarded message and even Ex.P-3 also

clearly shows that the petitioner only even without reading the contents,

forwarded the same, but he cannot state that he was not aware of the same.

Without knowing the contents, one will not tender his apology. The cross-

examination of P.W.2 being the victim itself, clearly shows that the petitioner is

aware of the contents of the message posted in the social media. Therefore, in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the above circumstances, Ex.P-3 certificate is enough and therefore, the

prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and there is no

perversity in appreciation of the evidence.

13. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) further contended

that the scope of the revision petition is very limited, and unless the Court finds

that there is perversity in appreciation of the evidence or there is legal bar, the

revisional Court may not interfere and even if the revisional Court finds that two

views are possible, normally, the Court cannot interfere with the view taken by

the trial Court. Therefore, in the above circumstances, there is no merit in the

revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

14. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

15. A reading of the entire materials available on record and even the

cross-examination of P.W.2, admittedly, the petitioner has forwarded the

message in the Facebook, but according to the petitioner, it was only forwarded

by him and somebody sent to him and without reading that, he just forwarded

the message of some other person, but after seeing the message, he

immediately removed the same. Ex.P-3 shows that the petitioner himself

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

admitted that he forwarded the message, but without reading the same, he had

forwarded the message, which is a matter of appreciation of evidence. A

perusal of the entire cross-examination of P.W.2, it cannot be stated that the

petitioner was not aware of the contents of the message. Knowing fully well and

knowing the consequences only, he had forwarded the same. Since there was

agitation against the contents, he had tendered apology and removed the

message from Facebook.

16. However, considering the nature of the contents of the message, it is

seen that the de-facto complainant is not ready to accept the apology. A reading

of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, especially the cross-examination of the petitioner,

clearly shows that the petitioner had forwarded the Facebook message and he

was well aware of the contents of the Facebook message, he also admitted that,

after receiving the objection, it could be seen that it is unbelievable that after

receiving certain response from the Facebook, the petitioner, without reading

the contents, simply deleted his message and therefore, the petitioner was not

aware of the contents and therefore, certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian

Evidence Act regarding the original content from the electronic records, which is

not necessary, however, the prosecution produced Ex.P-3 and on a reading of

the cross-examination of P.W.2, it is clear that ExP-3 - certificate is sufficient and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

therefore, when once the prosecution has proved that the petitioner sent the

message in the Facebook, as stated above.

17. It clearly shows that it affects the reputation of P.W.2 and the

contents of the message are only about P.W.2 and other journalists and even

ultimately, who are depending on the same from the family members/superiors.

Therefore, a thorough perusal and reading of the cross-examination of P.W.2

that the offence(s) against the petitioner, is made out and the prosecution also

has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts.

18. Further, a reading of the contents, in merely tendering the apology

itself, is not sufficient. Further, according to P.W.2, the petitioner did not tender

any unconditional apology directly from P.W.2 being the victim and he sent the

apology in common.

19. A close reading of the evidence of P.W.2, the question was posed

before P.W.2 that even now, the petitioner is ready to tender his apology

individually from the petitioner. Mere tendering apology itself would not be

sufficient. When once the contents are released and it is also seen by various

persons, certainly, the image of the de-facto complainant and other journalists

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

would be degraded and subsequent tendering apology will not remove the image

from the public. Therefore, this is a fit case where the petitioner has to be

convicted. Furthermore, on a reading of the entire materials from the complaint

and taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and also the

documentary evidence, it is clearly proved that the petitioner had committed the

offence(s) and there is no perversity in appreciation of the evidence and that

there is no legal bar to take complaint on file.

20. The petitioner has not been posed a question regarding the

incriminating circumstances culled out from the prosecution witnesses

concerned. A reading of the proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it shows

that the trial Court has posed all the incriminating materials before the petitioner

and the petitioner also has understood all the incriminating materials posed

before him and he had denied the same.

21. Therefore, in the above circumstances, the contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioner regarding the incriminating materials had not been

posed before him, which is not acceptable.

22. Further, the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court relied on by

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the learned counsel for the petitioner, in 2022 (7) SCC 581 (Ravinder Singh Vs.

State of Punjab) and 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3383 (Randeep Singh alias Rana and

another Vs. State of Haryana and others) and the decision of this Court reported

in 2024 SCC Online Madras 5188 (R.Thiagarajan Vs. State, rep. by the Inspector

of Police, SPE, CBI, ACB), relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are

distinguishable on facts and the same are not applicable to the facts of the

present case on hand.

23. Furthermore, all the incriminating materials put forth before the

petitioner, which were denied by him. Hence, this Court does not find any reason

to interfere with the impugned judgment of the trial Court. Like the appellate

Court, the revisional Court need not re-appreciate the entire evidence

independently. The scope of the revision petition is very limited while exercising

the revisional jurisdiction and the revision Court has to see as to whether there is

any legal bar or there is any perversity in appreciation of the evidence.

24. Hence, considering the scope and object of the revision and also

taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and on a

thorough reading of the materials placed before the trial Court, this Court does

not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and therefore, the

revision petition is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the

petitioner by the trial Court, are confirmed. The trial Court is directed to secure

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the custody of the revision petitioner/accused to undergo the remaining period of

sentence, if any. The respondent/Police shall not execute the sentence imposed

on the revision petitioner/accused by the trial Court, which has now been

confirmed by this Court, till the expiry of the limitation period for filing Special

Leave Petition, if any, before the Supreme Court, for 90 days from today

(02.01.2025).

Consequently, the miscellaneous petition is closed.

02.01.2025

Office to note:

1) Registry is directed to upload the order copy by today (02.01.2025) itself.

2) Issue order copy today (2.1.2025)

To

1. The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Cell, Central Crime Branch, No.132, Commissioner Office Building, EVK Sampath Road, Vepery, Periyamet, Chennai-600 007.