Partly allowed

Tomcy Michael v. T.C.Mathew

Kerala HC16 Jul 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/1387/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Kerala allowed the revision in part. The court upheld the acquittal regarding Section 294(b) IPC as the incident occurred on a private varandah, not a public place. However, it set aside the acquittal for Section 506(i) IPC, holding that the accused's conduct and threats engendered fear, and remanded for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Judgment acquitting accused under Sec. 294(b) IPC upheld; acquittal under Sec. 506(i) IPC set aside and case remanded for reconsideration.

Tomcy Michael Vs T.C.Mathew — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

“CR”

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2007 / 25TH ASHADHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1387 of 2007(E) ------------------------------C.C. NO. 949 OF 2003 OF THE J.M.F.C.-I, KOTTAYAM REVN. PETITIONER: DEFACTO COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------

¶5

TOMCY MICHAEL, S/O.MICHAEL, PUTHUPPALLYMATTOM HOUSE, MYLADI, PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM DIST.

¶6

BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC

¶7

RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED & STATE

¶8

¶9

T.C.MATHEW, S/O.CHANDY, THANNIPPARA VEEDU, PULIKKALKAVALA BHAGAM, VAZHOOR VILLAGE, VAZHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

T.C.THOMAS, S/O.CHANDY, THANNIPPARA VEEDU, 14TH MILE BHAGAM, VAZHOOR VILLAGE, VAZHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶11

FRANCIS, S/O.CHANDY, THANNIPPARA VEEDU, 14 MILE BHAGAM, VAZHOOR VILLAGE, VAZHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶12

PHILIP, S/O.CHANDY, THANNIPPARA VEEDU, NEAR M.G.M. HIGH SCHOOL, PAMPADY VILLAGE, PAMPADY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOKEN

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-07-2007 THE COURT ON 16/07/2007 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶17

*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.Rev. No.1387 of 2007**

¶18

*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated, this the 16**^th day of July 2007

¶19

ORDER

¶20

In this Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. the revision petitioner who is the de facto complainant in Crime No. 151 of 2003 of Pampadi Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 451, 294 (b() and 506 (i) read with Sec. 34 I.P.C., challenges the judgment dated 5-7-2006 passed by the J.F.C.M.-I, Kottayam in C.C. 949 of 2003, acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b) and 506 (i) I.P.C.

¶21

I heard both sides. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused did not challenge the conviction entered and the sentence of fine passed against them for the offence punishable under Sec. 448 I.P.C. as against the charge under Section 451 I.P.C.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner made the following submissions before me in support of the revision:-

¶23

Eventhough the learned Magistrate has held that P.Ws 1 and 2 who are the de facto complainant and his father are trustworthy, the accused have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sec. 294 (b) I.P.C. stating that both the above witnesses did not say that they were annoyed at the accused calling them obscene words. This view of the court below is not correct since P.W.1 has stated that hearing the words of the accused he felt distress ( മന��വ�ഷമ� ന��ന�). Similarly, the accused were acquitted of the offence punishable under Sec. 506 (i) I.P.C. by holding that P.Ws 1 and 2 have not stated that they felt fear on account of the conduct of the accused. A reading of the definition of “criminal intimidation” under Sec. 503 I.P.C. will show that a feeling of fear is not insisted upon by law.

¶24

Crl.Rev. No.1387 of 2007 -:2:-

¶25

While in the case of Section 294 (b) I.P.C., I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above submissions, in the case of 506 (i) I.P.C. I see some force in the submission made on behalf of the revision petitioner.

¶26

In order to constitute the offence under Section 294 (b) I.P.C. the utterance of obscene words should be in or near any public place and that too to the annoyance of others. Strictly understood, the word ( മന��വ�ഷമ� ) is “mental distress” and the appropriate vernacular synonym for annoyance is ( അസഹ��, അലടല , ശല � � or ഉപദ�വ� ). Even assuming that the word (മന��വ�ഷമ� ) could be treated as annoyance, the utterance of the obscene words should be in or near any public place. The evidence on record shows that the place of occurrence is not in or near any public place, but is on the varandah of the house of P.W.1. The said property of P.W.1 is not abutting any road, street, way or other thoroughfare nor is it situated inside or near a place which could be called a public place. Unlike a private property, a public place is one over which the public have a right of access. Hence, the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in acquitting the accused of the offence punishable under Section 294 (b) I.P.C.

¶27

With regard to the offence punishable under Section 506 (i) I.P.C. apart from the fact that Sec. 503 I.P.C. which defines “criminal intimidation” does not insist that the victim should experience fear on account of the criminal intimidation, the evidence of P.W.1 shows that the accused trespassed into his house calling filthy words and uttering that they will kill him the 2^nd accused caught hold of the neck of P.W.1. P.W.2 also says that the accused had uttered that they will kill P.W.1 and then hang him. So saying the

¶28

Crl.Rev. No.1387 of 2007 -:3:-

¶29

accused rushed towards P.W.1. This is sufficient to engender fear in the minds of P.Ws 1 and 2. The learned Magistrate does not appear to have focused his attention to this aspect of the matter. Upholding the acquittal of the accused under Section 294 (b) I.P.C. the judgment dated 5-7-2006 of the J.F.C.M. Kottayam in C.C. 947 of 2003 is set aside and remanded to that court for re-consideration with regard to the offence punishable under Section 506 (i) I.P.C. The conviction and sentence under Section 448 I.P.C. is not interfered with.

¶30

In the result, this Revision Petition is allowed in part as above.

¶31

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶32

ani.

Tomcy Michael v. T.C.Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tomcy Michael v. T.C.Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devarajan Vs Jose Paul

R.Balakrishnan Vs Kerala Financial Corporation and Another

Rajendra Kumar Vs Parasmal Lunavat and Another

M.K.Kumaran Vs P.v.Varghese

Narayanan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Biju Joseph @ Biju Vs State of Kerala