1. Facebook post by ex-MLA containing derogatory comment against women journalists — Charges under IPC and Tamil Nadu Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 80488
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. Velmurugan, J
S.Ve.Shekar – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.497 of 2024|Crl.M.P.No.4733 of 2024
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Venkatesh Mahadevan
For the Respondents: S. Vinoth Kumar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Venkatesh Mahadevan
For the Respondents: S. Vinoth Kumar
The revisional court's jurisdiction is limited to correcting perversity or legal errors; it cannot substitute the trial court's view if the finding is reasonable. Admission of forwarding electronic content can validate convictions even if strict Section 65-B compliance is contested, provided other evidence proves the act.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 504, 505(1)(c) and 509 - Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 - Section 4 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65-B - Forwarding derogatory messages on social media - Admissibility of electronic evidence in the form of screenshots - Petitioner, a former MLA, forwarded derogatory comments against women journalists on Facebook - Contention that lack of Section 65-B certificate renders screenshots inadmissible - Court held that where the accused admits to forwarding the message, the certificate may not be strictly necessary as evidence suffices to prove the act. (Paras 12, 16)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction - Revisional Court is not to re-appreciate evidence independently unless there is perversity in appreciation or a legal bar - If two views are possible, the revisional Court cannot interfere with the view taken by the trial Court. (Paras 13, 23)
(C) Criminal Law - Mens rea and Apology - Mere tendering of a general apology after the commission of an offence does not absolve the accused of criminal liability, especially when the reputation of the victims has already been degraded in the public eye. (Paras 15, 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a former Member of Legislative Assembly, was convicted by the trial court for posting/forwarding derogatory messages against women journalists, including P.W.2, on Facebook. The petitioner challenged the conviction in revision, arguing that the prosecution failed to produce original messages, the screenshots were inadmissible without a Section 65-B certificate, and that he had no criminal intention and had tendered an apology.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner admitted to forwarding the messages. It was deemed unbelievable that he forwarded them without reading the contents. The court held that the evidence produced (Ex.P-3) was sufficient to establish the offence and that the apology tendered was not unconditional or directed specifically to the victim.
Issues: Whether the conviction was based on perverse appreciation of evidence and whether the non-compliance with Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act vitiated the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence of forwarding a message on social media, coupled with the petitioner's own admissions, was sufficient to establish the offence. Furthermore, the revisional court cannot interfere with a trial court's findings unless they are perverse or legally flawed.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
-
constitutional law
-
fundamental rights
- freedom of speech and expression (Para 3)
-
fundamental rights
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued investigation lapses, lack of Section 65-B certificate, and no criminal intent. Respondent maintained evidence sufficient. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. Petitioner forwarded the message, was aware of its contents, and apology after public agitation confirms knowledge. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )
4. Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is not necessary for forwarded message when other evidence proves awareness. (Para 16 )
5. Revision dismissed: trial court judgment confirmed; sentence to be executed after 90 days for SLP limitation. (Para 24 )
6. Is a Section 65-B certificate mandatory for a screenshot of a forwarded message to be admissible in evidence?
No. The court held that such certificate is not necessary when the forwarding and awareness of contents are proved through other evidence. (Para 16 )
7. Can an unconditional apology after the act negate criminal intention (mens rea) under Sections 504, 509 IPC?
No. Merely tendering an apology after public agitation does not negate mens rea, especially when the content degraded the complainant. (Para 18 , 19 )
8. What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction in criminal cases?
Revisional court can interfere only if there is perversity in appreciation of evidence or legal bar; it does not re-appreciate evidence independently. (Para 23 )
9. Is it necessary to put every incriminating circumstance to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.?
Yes, but the court must verify from the record; here all incriminating materials were put to the accused and denied. (Para 20 , 21 )
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 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.
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.1
