Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 91325
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G Subramania Koushik – Appellant
Versus
The Principal Secretary – Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.497 of 2024
Forwarding derogatory social media content with knowledge of its nature and impact constitutes an offence despite subsequent deletion or apology, provided the prosecution establishes the linkage through evidence.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a revision against conviction for offences under Sections 504 and 509 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, arising from derogatory social media posts against journalists. The trial court found the accused guilty of posting offensive content. The High Court determined that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, finding that the electronic evidence was sufficient and that the petitioner’s awareness of the content was evidenced by his subsequent apology and deletion of the post. The main issue was whether the trial court erred in evidence appreciation and if Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act was violated. The court held that non-compliance with technical procedural requirements does not vitiate a conviction where substantive evidence, including admissions of message forwarding, confirms the intent to humiliate. The ratio decidendi established that once voluntary participation in spreading defamatory content is proven, subsequent apologies do not absolve the criminal act of degrading public figures. The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, and the trial court's conviction and sentence are confirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of charges and procedural history regarding electronic defamation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. appellants arguments on evidence admissibility, lack of 65-b certificate, and intent. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. respondent arguments on admission of forwarding content and scope of revision. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 4. courts finding that forwarding with knowledge proves offence regardless of apology. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
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)
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-sh
