Mere apprehensions unaccompanied by an intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to attract Sec.506(ii) I.P.C.

This Appeal is directed against the Judgment of Acquittal (dated 22.07.1996) of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, acquitting the Respondents for the offence punishable under Sec.506(ii) I.P.C in C.C.No.7487 of 1987.

2. We may briefly refer to the facts, out of which the present Appeal has arisen:-

Deceased / Accused – Rajasekaran and the Complainant – Krishnasamy are Brothers. A-1-Dharanibai Ammal is the Wife of Rajasekaran. A-2 and A-3 are the Daughter and Son of Rajasekaran. Accused Rajasekaran died even before framing of the Charge.

3. The Complainant and his Brother were pitted against each other on the enjoyment of the House Property in Door No.63, Burkit Road, T.Nagar, Chennai. The Complainant has filed the Complaint alleging that his Brother-Rajasekaran and his family members have forcibly and illegally occupied the house. Regarding the enjoyment of the house, there is persisting enmity between the parties.

4. This Complaint, filed under Sec.506(ii) I.P.C relates to the occurrence on 30.03.1987 – 09.00 a.m. According to the Complainant, his Brother-Rajasekaran is alleged to have called A-3 and threatened to finish the Complainant. A-3 is alleged to have stated

Alleging that the above wordy abuses amount to criminal intimidation and threat, the Complainant has filed the Private Complaint under Sec.506(ii) I.P.C.

5. The Complaint was forwarded to the Police for Investigation. The Police has referred the Complaint as mistake of fact. On recording the Sworn Statement of the Complainant, the case was taken on file under Sec.506(ii) I.P.C. in C.C.No.7787 of 1987. In the Trial Court, the Complainant was examined as P.W.1. Exs.P.1 to P.89 were marked. In consideration of the evidence, learned Magistrate pointed out that except the evidence of the Complainant, no other evidence is adduced to strengthen the allegations in the Complaint. Learned Trial Magistrate has further pointed out that the contradictions on the alleged threat in the contents of the Complaint and the version of the Complainant and that the evidence of Complainant is unreliable. Learned Magistrate has found that only Exs.P.1 to P.3 are relevant for determining the issue, Exs.P.4 to P.89 are irrelevant. Pointing out the contradictions in the evidence of Complainant and the averments in the Complaint and other circumstances, learned Magistrate acquitted the Accused by giving them benefit of doubt.

6. Aggrieved over the Acquittal, the Complainant has preferred this Appeal. Learned counsel for the Appellant / Complainant has submitted that the Trial Court has erred in not properly appreciating the evidence of threat meted out to the Complainant. Though many grounds are urged in the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal, learned counsel for the Appellant has confined his arguments to the limited extent of appreciation of the evidence regarding P.W.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.3.

7. Onbehalf of the Respondents / Accused, it is contended that in view of glaring inconsistency in the version of the Complainant and the allegations in the Complaint. Learned Trial Magistrate has rightly acquitted the Respondents. He has further submitted that mere words of threat would not attract the ingredients of Sec.506(ii) I.P.C and that the Judgment does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference.

8. In consideration of the submissions of both sides, Judgment of the Trial Court and other materials on record, the only Point that arises for consideration is : “Whether the ingredients of Sec.506(ii) I.P.C is proved and whether the Acquittal suffers from any substantial error warranting interference?”

9. For the limited purpose of determining the contentious point, suffice it to refer to Exs.P.1 to P.3. The voluminous documents Exs.P.4 to P.89 relate to the dispute between the parties on enjoyment of the house in D.No.63, Burkit Road, T.Nagar, Chennai. For better appreciation of the subsisting deep seated enmity between the parties, as an illustrative example, we may refer