Mere scolding in a private place does not constitute an offense under Section 294(b) IPC.

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the judgment dated 23.08.2024 passed in C.A.No.1 of 2022 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai, confirming the order dated 15.12.2021 passed in S.T.C.No.55 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mayiladuthurai.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.10.2019, the accused persons scolded P.W.1 with filthy language ad assaulted him with bare hands and wooden log and threatened him with dire consequences.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that false case has been foisted against them. P.W.1 who is the victim has stated that the first accused scolded him with filthy language and also received the stick from his wife and attacked him. Later, he stated that the first accused assaulted the victim with hands only and due to which, there was bleeding on the nose. The Doctor has stated that the victim sustained injuries only on the lips. P.W.2 has not spoken anything about the alleged incident and he is only a hearsay witness. Though P.Ws.3 and 4 are cited as eye witnesses, they have not stated specifically as to who are the accused attacked the victim and on which part of the body of the victim getting injured. There are material contradictions between the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Further, two of the eye witnesses have turned hostile. The eye witnesses who have supported the case of the prosecution have not specifically stated that the petitioners have scolded the victim with filthy language in a public view. The petitioners have challenged the judgment of the trial court and filed an appeal before the first appellate court. The first appellate court is a fact finding court, failed to re-appreciate the evidence, simply endorsed the views of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. He further submitted that as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, mere scolding in the private place or in the covered place offence under Section 294(b) would not attract. Except P.W.1, none of the witnesses have spoken that the accused scolded the victim with filthy language in their presence. Therefore ingredients of offence under Section 294(b) IPC would not attract. Both the courts below failed to appreciate the evidence and over sighted the material contradictions in the evidence of the defacto complainant and the eye witnesses.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has proved its case by examination of the witnesses and out of which, P.W.1 who is the victim has clearly spoken about the offence committed by the petitioners. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the eye witnesses who have corroborated the same. Hence, the trial court appreciated the evidence and convicted the accused. The appellate Court has also rightly re-appreciated the evidence and confirmed the judgment of the trial court. There is no merit in the appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-Police and perused the materials available on record. 7. The respondent/Police registered a case in Crime No.297 of

2020 against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC in Crime No.927 of 2020. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mayiladuthurai. The petitioners were charged for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(ii) IPC. During trial, in order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, nine witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution and five documents were marked. On the side of the