Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 16961
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, J
S.VE.SHEKHER – Appellant
Versus
STATE REPRESENTED BY – Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.497 of 2024 | Crl.M.P.No.4733 of 2024
For the Appellant: Mr.Venkatesh Mahadevan
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
Prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; failure to authenticate electronic evidence undermines its case.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 504, 505(1)(c), 509 - Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 - Revision against conviction for forwarding derogatory message against women - Prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; original message not produced, reliance on inadmissible evidence raised doubts on prosecution's case. (Paras 4, 6, 10, 16)
(B) Evidence Act - Section 65-B - Non-compliance with statutory requirements for electronic evidence - Lack of authentication for screen-shot of message undermined prosecution's case. (Paras 5, 9, 10, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a former MLA, was charged for forwarding derogatory messages against women journalists, leading to public unrest. The prosecution's evidence was deemed insufficient and unreliable, lacking direct evidence or proper authentication of the alleged messages.
Findings of Court:
The trial Court's reliance on inadmissible evidence and failure to establish the authenticity of the message led to doubts about the prosecution's claims.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the charges against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and whether the evidence presented was admissible.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of proving charges beyond reasonable doubt and pointed out the prosecution's failure to meet evidentiary standards, particularly regarding electronic evidence.
Result: Revision petition dismissed, conviction and sentence upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. charges related to derogatory messaging against women. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defense arguments on prosecution's evidence and authenticity. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. issues of criminal intention and mens rea. (Para 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. prosecution's burden of proof and appellate standards. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. court's reasoning on evidence and conviction. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. final ruling on the validity of the conviction. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. conclusion on the appeal and confirmation of conviction. (Para 22 , 23) |
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 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.
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 unconditio
