Dismissed

Vijayakuamr, 26 Yrs, v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC28 Feb 2024CRL A/325/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Vijayakumar challenging his conviction for criminal intimidation. The court held that the prosecution proved the threat to upload a video recording was made with the necessary intention to cause alarm, upholding the conviction for Section 506(ii) IPC independently of acquittals on other charges.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal dismissed; sentence and conviction under Section 506(ii) of IPC by the Trial Court confirmed.

Vijayakuamr, 26 Yrs, Vs Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.A.No.325 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 28.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI

¶6

Crl.A.No. 325 of 2017

¶7

Vijayakumar ... Appellant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State of Tamilnadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, A.W.P.S, Gingee, Villupuram District.(Cr.No. 13/2015 ) ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in SC.No. 206 of 2016 on the file of the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Magalir Needhi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court) Villupuram to set aside the order of conviction dated 12.06.2017 and to set the appellant at liberty.

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. M.Devaraj For Respondents : Mrs. G.V.Kasthuri Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

The sole accused who was tried in S.C.No. 206 of 2016 by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Needhi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram has preferred appeal for the offences under Sections

¶14

1/14

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

Crl.A.No.325 of 2017

¶17

376, 493, 354(c) and 506(ii) of IPC, in which he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- in default, to undergo further period of simple imprisonment of three months for the offence under Section 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code and acquitted under Section 376, 493 and 354(c) of IPC.

¶18

The case of the prosecution in brief is given hereunder as follows:-

¶19

The victim and the accused were friends from their school days.

¶20

Prior to the date of occurrence two years before, the accused gave a promise to marry the victim. Both had physical intimacy for two years.

¶21

When the family members of the victim were seeking for suitable alliance for her, the accused married the prosecutrix secretly on 11.07.2015 at Iyyanar Koil.

¶22

When the victim went to Chennai on 18.07.2015 to live with him, the accused threatened the victim that he would upload the video recording of the victim in the Face book which he had captured while she was taking bath. Hence, accused was charge sheeted for the offenses punishable under Sections 420, 376, 354(c) of Indian Penal Code.

¶23

2/14

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

Crl.A.No.325 of 2017

¶26

The victim lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) before the Police station Gingee and the Police Constable 2077 Jayaseeli assigned CSR.No. 203/2015 in community service register and later the case was registered (FIR/Ex.P.5) in Crime No. 13/2015 under Sections 417, 376, 354(c) of IPC by the Inspector of Police, A.W.P.S, Gingee.

¶27

The Investigating officer took up the case for investigation, went to the place of occurrence and prepared observation Mahazer (Ex.P6) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P7) in the presence of witnesses. She examined witnesses Pushpa thanaraklin mary (P.W.1), Suguna (P.W.7), Kumar (P.W.3), Angelin (P.W.2), S.Arokiyadoss (P.W.8) and recorded their statements. The accused was not arrested by the investigating officer as order of Anticipatory Bail was obtained by the accused in the Criminal OP.24918 of 2015 dated 14.10.2015.

¶28

In continuation, upon requisition, potency certificate (Ex.P8) and age certificate (Ex.P9) for the accused were obtained from the medical officer. Upon requisition, on 05.11.2015 the victim was sent for medical examination. The swab and smear test report were obtained (Ex.P10). Medical officer who examined the accused and the victim were enquired on 02.02.2016 and the medical reports were obtained. She recorded the

¶29

3/14

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

Crl.A.No.325 of 2017

¶32

statements of police constables who took the victim and the accused to the Government Hospital for medical examination. The case was altered from Sections 376, 471, 354(c) of Indian Penal Code to Sections 376, 420, 354(c) of Indian Penal Code and laid the final report against the accused.

¶33

On appearance of the accused before the Trial Court, upon consideration, charges were framed against the accused under Sections 376, 493, 506(ii) and 354(c) of IPC. When the accused was questioned, he pleaded not guilty and denied the charges. In order to substantiate the charges, on the prosecution side, 13 witnesses were examined and 11 exhibits were marked. No witness was examined by the defence side.

¶34

Upon consideration, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the

¶35

accused as mentioned supra. Aggrieved, the accused has preferred this appeal.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would strenuously contend that when the accused was acquitted under Section 376, 493, 354(c) of IPC then charge under section 506(ii) of IPC cannot stand alone. It is his further argument that insofar as threatening is concerned, it is said to be made over phone. There is no specific date mentioned in the complaint. He would further contend that, cellphone should have been

¶37

4/14

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

Crl.A.No.325 of 2017

¶40

seized from the victim.

¶41

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently argue that the prosecution has proved the charge under Section 506(ii) of IPC beyond reasonable doubt through the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.5, P.W.7 and P.W.10.

¶42

Pushpa Thanaraklinmary, P.W.1 has spoken about the occurrence. Among Angeline P.W.2, Kumar P.W.3, Sureshkumar P.W.4, Edwinrani P.W.5 (Sister of P.W.1), victim's brother's wife Suguna P.W.7, the relatives of victim Sakthivel P.W.9, Pushpa Danaheldamery (another sister of victim) P.W.10, Jagadeesan P.W.11(relative), P.W.5, P.W.7 and P.W.10 have spoken about the occurrence. Dr.Gitanjali, Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine was examined as P.W.12, and she conducted medical examination to the victim and issued medical examination report (Ex.P3), Investigating officer is P.W.13.

¶43

It is the evidence of P.W.1 that “...vjphp Kjypy; ghj;U:kpw;F brd;W

¶44

Fspj;Jtpl;L te;jhh;/ mjd;gpwF jd;Dila bkhigy; nghdpy; nfkuhit Md; bra;J ghj;U:kpy; itj;Jtpl;L te;Js;shh;/ ehd; Fspf;f brd;wnghJ me;j fhl;rpfs; me;j bry;nghdpy; gjpthfpapUf;fpwJ/ me;j tptuk; vdf;F bjhpatpy;iy. vjphp me;j bry;nghid

¶45

vLj;Jf;bfhz;L rhg;gpl;L tpl;L brd;Wtpl;lhh;/ ,uz;L ehl;fs; fHpj;J vjphp vd;dplk; bry;nghdpy; ehd; Fspf;Fk; fhl;rp gjpthfpa[s;sij brhd;dhh;/ ehd; vjphpaplk; mGnjd;/

¶46

5/14

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

Crl.A.No.325 of 2017

¶49

mg;nghJ vjphp me;j fhl;rpfis blypl; bra;JtpLtjhf brhd;dhh;///

¶50

////vdf;F khjtplha; tutpy;iy vd;W brhd;ndd;/ mg;nghJ vjphp fUfiyg;g[

¶51

khj;jpiu th';fpf;bfhLj;jhh;/ khjtplha; tUfpwhjh vd;W nfl;lhh;/ ,y;iy vd;why;

¶52

kUj;Jtkidf;F brd;W ghh;f;fbrhd;dhh;/ me;j bry;nghd; gjpit mHpf;f brhd;ndd ; / jhypia fHl;o nghl;LtpLk; go brhd;dhh;/ mt;thW bra;atpy;iy vd;why; ehd; Fspf;Fk; fhl;rpia bel;oy; nghl;LtpLtjhf brhd;dhh;/ ehd; clnd mGnjd;/////

¶53

/////vdf;F epyg;gpur;rpid ,Ue;jJ/ mg;nghJ g[jpa jiyKiw hpg;nghh;l;lh; n$hjp

¶54

vd;gthplk; mJFwpj;J Mnyhrid nfl;nld;/ mthplk; ehd; vjphp gw;wp brhd;ndd;/ mth; tpGg;g[uk; fz;fhzpg;ghshplk; brd;W nghd; bra;J bfhLg;gjhf brhd;dhh;/ mg;nghJ fhty; Jiw fz;fhzpg;ghsh; g[fhh; bfhLf;f brhd;dhh;/ ehd; g[fhh; bfhLf;fkhl;nld;/ tPl;oy; bjhpe;jhy; gpur;ridahfptpLk; vd;W brhd;ndd;/ mth; bflhpYs;s _dpthrd; vd;w cjtp Ma;thshplk; jfty; brhy;yp vjphp vd;id kpul;Lk; tptuj;ij brhy;ypa[s;shh;/ mth; vjphpaplk; ngrpanghJ vjphp Fspay; fhl;rpia blypl; bra;JtpLtjhf mthplk; brhy;ypa[s;shh;//”

¶55

It appears that P.W.1 and the accused were in physical relationship for years together.

¶56

P.W.2, Angelin and P.W.4 Sureshkumar, have not supported the prosecution case and they were treated as hostile witness. P.W.6 Arokiyadoss, P.W.8 S.Arokiyadoss, P.W.9 Sakthivel have also turned hostile. It is the testimony of P.W.3 Kumar, the Panchayat President of Tatnagar, Villupuram that on request by the victim, along with two persons from the victim side, went to the accused house and explained about the

¶57

6/14

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

Crl.A.No.325 of 2017

¶60

occurrence to the parents of the accused. The father and mother of the accused told him that they would consult the accused and thereafter they would inform him. But, they did not respond to his request. Afterwards, the Complaint was lodged by the victim.

¶61

P.W.5 younger sister of victim Edvinrani apart from the other

¶62

details has specifically deposed that “....vd; j';ifaplk; neuhf ghz;or;nrhpf;F tUk;gobrhd;ndd;/ mtiu tprhhpj;jnghJ vjphp jd;id Fspf;Fk;nghJ g[ifg;glk; vLj;Jtpl;ljhft[k;. mij fhl;o kpul;Ltjhft[k; brhd;dhh;....”

¶63

P.W.7 Suguna who is brother's wife of victim would state that

¶64

“....xU ehs; m/rh/1 nghdpy; gjl;lkhf ngrpf;bfhz;L ,Ue;jhh;/ mg;nghJ m/rh/1 mJnghy; vJt[k; fpilahJ. ng!;g[f;fpy; tpl;LtlhjP';f vd;W brhd;dhh;/ mij ehd; nfl;nld;....”

¶65

P.W.10 Pushpa Danahelda Mary, another sister of PW1 has

¶66

deposed that “....tPl;oy; gpur;ridahf ,Uf;fpwJ th vd;W nghd; bra;jhh;fs;/ ehd;

¶67

tPl;ow;F brd;wnghJ vd; mz;zd;. mf;fh vy;nyhUk; ,Ue;jhh;fs;/ ehd; vd;d gpur;rpid vd;W nfl;nld;/ mg;nghJ m/rh/1 mGJbfhz;oUe;jhh;/ mg;nghJ vjphp vd; mf;fh Fspf;Fk;nghJ bry;nghdpy; glk; vLj;Jtpl;ljhf brhd;dhh;/ ng!; g[f;fpy; nghLtjhf brhy;yp

¶68

mtiu kpul;o fw;gHpj;Jtpl;ljhf brhd;dhh;/ fy;yh';Fj;J vd;w ,lj;jpy; mtiu kpul;o jhyp fl;otpl;ljhf brhd;dhh;....”

¶69

In order to have a proper understanding, it is relevant to extract

¶70

the charge as regards under Sections 506(ii) of IPC 3^rd charge is as follows:-

¶71

7/14

¶72

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶73

Crl.A.No.325 of 2017

¶74

“....nkw;go rk;gtj;jpd; bjhlh;r;rpahf vjphpahd ePtph; 1tJ rhl;rp vjphpahd ckf;F

¶75

nghd; bra;jnghJ vjphpahd ePtph; eP ,dp nghd; bra;jhy; eP Fspf;Fk;nghJ vLj;j tPonah glj;ij ng!;g[f;fpy; nghl;LtpLntd; vd;W bgz;zpd; fw;gpd;ik gHpia Twp kpul;oajhy; ,/j/r 506(2) gphptpd;go jz;of;fjf;fJk;/ ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jhy; tprhuid bra;aj;jf;fJkhd Fw;wbkhd;iw bra;J}s;sPh;....”

¶76

The offence of criminal intimidation is defined in Section 503 which is extracted hereunder:-

¶77

“ Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.

¶78

Explanation— A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.”

¶79

Existence of the intention is essential to the offence. The threat

¶80

referred to in this Sections must be the threat uttered with the intention. It is being communicated to the person threatened for the purpose of influencing mind. Therefore, the ultimate point is intention of the accused that is to be

¶81

8/14

¶82

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶83

Crl.A.No.325 of 2017

¶84

considered in deciding as to whether what he uttered, comes within the meaning of Section 503 of Indian Penal Code.

¶85

On perusal of Ex.P1 complaint, she has stated about the details of criminal intimidation. Whether the accused uttered as alleged by the victim and if at all it is uttered, was it done with mensrea has to be seen. Therefore, in order to constitute the offence under Section 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code, it is to be shown that the person charged actually threatened another with intention to cause alarm. In this regard, in the complaint, P.W.1 has spoken about the said details and during the examination of P.W.1, complainant has explained about it sufficiently.

¶86

From deep analysis of the evidence of P.W.1, it appears that in the year 2013, the accused wanted to speak to her and the portion of the evidence of P.W.1 has been culled out is as follows:-

¶87

“....2013k; Mz;L mtUf;F nghyPrpy; ntiy fpilf;ftpy;iy/ mth; tUj;jkhf ,Ue;jhh;/ ehd; mtiu rkhjhdg;gLj;jpndd;/ mg;nghJ ehd; tpGg;g[uj;jpy; mf;fht[ld; thlif tPl;oy; ,Ue;njd;/ kPz;Lk; vd;id clYwt[f;F miHj;jnghJ kWj;Jtpl;nld;/

¶88

mg;nghJ ehd; tPl;oy; ngRfpnwd;/ vd; kPJ ek;gpf;if ,y;iyah vd;W nfl;L vd;id kPz;Lk; fl;lhag;gLj;jp vd;Dld; clYwt[ bfhz;lhh;/ vjphp Kjypy; ghj;Ukpw;F brd;W Fspj;Jtpl;L te;jhh;/ mjd;gpwF jd;Dila bkhigy; nghdpy; nfkuhit Md; bra;J ghj;U:kpy; itj;Jtpl;L te;Js;shh;/ ehd; Fspf;f brd;wnghJ me;j fhl;rpfs; me;j

¶89

9/14

¶90

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶91

Crl.A.No.325 of 2017

¶92

bry;nghdpy; gjpthfpapUf;fpwJ/ me;j tptuk; vdf;F bjhpatpy;iy/ vjphp me;j bry;nghid

¶93

vLj;Jf;bfhz;L rhg;gpl;L tpl;L brd;Wtpl;lhh;/ ,uz;L ehl;fs; fHpj;J vjphp vd;dplk; bry;nghdpy; ehd; Fspf;Fk; fhl;rp gjpthfpa[s;sij brhd;dhh;/ ehd; vjphpaplk; mGnjd;....”

¶94

In continuation, it is the evidence of P.W.1, that in the year 2015 (i.e) after two years, she told the accused that she did not get her periods, then the conversions were recorded by P.W.1. The accused told P.W.1 to delete the same and to remove the Thali. If she did not chose to do it, he threatened her that he would upload her bathing recordings in the Internet. Therefore, these portions of evidence of P.W.1 would depict the fact that he did the same with mens rea to intimidate her to do something or not to do something which necessarily has caused alarm to P.W.1. She rushed to one Jothi who was the reporter of one private television channel and consulted him and thereafter, it appears that, this matter was taken up to the Superintendent of Police. Though, P.W.1 was advised to lodge a complaint against the accused, she refused to do the same. Then this was informed to one Sub Inspector of Police and he told the accused to delete the cellphone recordings. She went to Chennai and rang up to him. As he did not attend to her phone call, she lodged a complaint.

¶95

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Romesh

¶96

10/14

¶97

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶98

Crl.A.No.325 of 2017

¶99

Chandra Arora -vs- State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 154, held that whether the appellant was charged and convicted for committing criminal intimidation by threatening victim and his daughter with injury to their reputation by publication of indecent photographs of the daughter with intention to cause alarm to them. The evidence showed that the sole purpose was to force the victim to pay hush money.

¶100

From the careful perusal of the evidence of aforesaid witness, it is discernible that intention of the accused must be to cause alarm to the victim to the effect that she should not demand him to live a married life. He has intimidated her by stating that he would upload the video taken through cellphone thereby, threatened her to impute the chastity of the complainant. Of course, the intention could only be gathered through the evidence of P.W.1 and other witnesses. As the allegations put forth by P.W.1 covers the period from 2013 to 2015 and so many times the accused has intimidated that he would upload the video recordings and non mentioning of specific date would not render her evidence has not acceptable. The supporting witnesses P.W.5, P.W.7 and P.W.10 are not enemical to the accused. Testimony of the prosecution witnesses are natural, cogent, contextual and trust worthy.

¶101

11/14

¶102

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶103

Crl.A.No.325 of 2017

¶104

Therefore, it clearly manifests from the evidence of prosecution witness that the accused had intimidated the victim that if she did not adhere to his words and commands, he would upload the victim's cellphone video recordings in the Face book. Therefore, it is clearly evident that with pucca mensrea, he had threatened the victim which amounts to criminal intimidation. Since, the accused was acquitted under charges under section 376, 493 and 354, the charges under Section 506(ii) cannot stand alone will not hold water for the reason that each offence has to be looked in a proper prospective independently.

¶105

In fine, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed and in the result, the sentence and conviction passed under Section 506(ii) of IPC by the Trial Court stands confirmed. The Trial Court shall secure the accused in order to serve the sentence by issuing warrant within a month from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment.

¶106

28.02.2024

¶107

nsl Index:Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No

¶108

12/14

¶109

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶110

Crl.A.No.325 of 2017

¶111

¶112

The VI Additional Sessions Court, Chennai

¶113

The Inspector of Police, J-5, Sasthri Nagar Police Station, Chennai.

¶114

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶115

The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.

¶116

13/14

¶117

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.325 of 2017

R. KALAIMATHI.J

nsl

Crl.A.No.325 of 2017

28.02.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶124

14/14

Vijayakuamr, 26 Yrs, v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayakuamr, 26 Yrs, v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Nandagopalan, Aged 44 Years, Vs Selvam @ Selvaganapathi

K.Pookadai Rani, Aged 48 Years Vs State by

S.K.Padmavathy Vs K.Chitra

The Divisional Manager Vs S. Valli

The Divisional Manager Vs R.Lakshmanan

P.Gandhgimathi@Akila Vs S.Krishnamoorthy