Kerala High Court
Revision vs By Advs on 29 January, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 9TH MAGHA, 1941
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1092 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER IN SC 866/2018 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS
COURT, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 118/2019 OF CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE,
ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN CRL.M.P/ACCUSED IN
C.CNO.118/19:
P N SURENDRAN NAIR
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.P.NARAYANAN NAIR, ANIZHAM, PUZHAKKARAPADOM,
VENNALA, ERNAKULAM-682028
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH
SRI.T.K.DEVARAJAN
SMT.T.N.SREEKALA
SRI.FRANKLIN ARACKAL
SRI.M.B.SOORI
SHRI.BABU M.
RESPONDENT/STATE, RESPONDENT IN CRL.M.P & COMPLAINANT IN CC
NO. 118/19:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031
SRI AJITH MURALI-PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 0.01.2020, THE COURT ON 29.01.2020 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1092 OF 2019
2
R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No. 1092 of 2019
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2020
ORDER
The petitioner was the sole accused in the case S.C No. 866/2018 on the file of the Court of Session, Ernakulam.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioner were under Sections 294(b) and 506(1) IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention and Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
3. The aforesaid case was based on the final report filed in Crime No. 853/2015 of the Ambalamedu Police Station. The case was registered on the basis of the first information statement given to the police by the de facto complainant.
4. The prosecution case against the petitioner/accused is as follows: The de facto complainant is a person who belongs to scheduled caste. The petitioner is a person who does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. They were employees of Kochi Refinery (BPCL). On 16.10.2015, between 08:15 and 08:30 hours, at the dress changing room inside the building of the company, the Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1092 OF 2019 3 petitioner called the de facto complainant by his caste name and insulted and abused him and used obscene words to his annoyance. The accused also swayed the belt which was in his hand and threatened the de facto complainant that he would kill him.
5. After completing the investigation, the police filed final report against the petitioner for the offences mentioned above in the Magistrate's Court concerned. Learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session, Ernakulam (the incident in the case was before the date 26.01.2016 on which the amendment of the Act came into force). The case was taken on file by the Court of Session as S.C No. 866/2018.
6. The petitioner filed an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C for discharge before the Sessions Court.
7. As per the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge discharged the petitioner of the offences punishable under Section 294(b) IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge found that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 506(1) IPC.
8. The aforesaid order is challenged by the petitioner in this revision petition.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1092 OF 2019 4
9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, even if the entire allegations against the petitioner with regard to the threat made by him to the de facto complainant are accepted as true, no offence under Section 506(1) IPC is made out against the petitioner.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the State or the de facto complainant has not filed any appeal or revision against the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge discharging the petitioner of the offences punishable under Section 294(b) IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.
12. The only question to be considered by this Court in this petition is whether the allegations against the petitioner in the final report filed by the police attract the offence punishable under Section 506(1) IPC.
13. The allegation in the chargesheet filed against the petitioner is that he swayed the belt in his hand and threatened the de facto complainant that he would kill him.
14. Apart from the de facto complainant, there are eye-witnesses cited by the prosecution to prove the incident. These eye-witnesses have given statement to the police that they saw the petitioner Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1092 OF 2019 5 swaying the belt and heard him threatening the de facto complainant that he would kill the de facto complainant.
15. Section 506 I.P.C prescribes the punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. "Criminal intimidation" is defined in Section 503 I.P.C. It reads as follows:
"503. Criminal intimidation.-- 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.
Explanation.-- A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section."
16. A reading of the definition of "criminal intimidation" would indicate that there must be an act of threatening another person, of causing any injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1092 OF 2019 6
17. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding whether the statement made by him comes within the meaning of "criminal intimidation". The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant or it must be with the intention to cause him to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of Section 503 I.P.C. The prosecution has to place on record material to show that the intention was to cause alarm to the complainant.
18. The gist of the offence of criminal intimidation is the effect which the threat is intended to have upon the mind of the person threatened. Intention is a mental condition which has to be gathered from the circumstances of the case. The threat must be intended to cause alarm. The degree of such alarm may vary in different cases. But it is essential that it is of a nature and extent to unsettle the mind of the person on whom it operates. An empty threat to kill, too insignificant, which would not have created any impact on the mind of a person of ordinary senses, is not sufficient.
19. In the instant case, the mere words uttered by the petitioner that he would kill the de facto complainant would not have Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1092 OF 2019 7 created any impact on the mind of the de facto complainant. It was not a serious threat but an empty threat without any intention. The petitioner was not armed with any dangerous weapon. Of course, it is alleged that he had swayed a belt. But, the scene of the incident was the dress changing room for the employees inside the building of the company. Therefore, possession of the belt by the petitioner at the time of the alleged incident cannot have much significance. In these circumstances, it cannot be found that the utterance made by the petitioner to the de facto complainant that he would kill him attracts the offence defined under Section 503 IPC and which is punishable under Section 506 IPC.
20. Learned Sessions Judge has not considered the aforesaid aspects. Learned Sessions Judge has only stated that there are clear allegations against the petitioner to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506(1) IPC. Learned Sessions Judge has not considered the circumstances under which the alleged utterance was made by the petitioner and whether mere utterance made by a person that he would kill was sufficient to attract the offence defined under Section 503 IPC.
21. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, as far as it pertains to the finding that Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1092 OF 2019 8 there are sufficient grounds for presuming that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 506(1) IPC, cannot be sustained.
22. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed.The impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, as far as it declines to discharge the petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 506(1) IPC, is set aside. The petitioner is discharged of the offence punishable under Section 506(1) IPC also.
Sd/-R. NARAYANA PISHARADI JUDGE lsn Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1092 OF 2019 9 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL BODY OF THE CREA UNION DATED 18.11.2003 AND GENERAL BODY MINUTES DATED 27.07.2004(27.07.2004) ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.853/2015 ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC 509/15 DATED 31.07.2017 ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.853/5 DATED 30.12.2015 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRRATE COURT, CHOTTANIKKARA ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C.1321/2016 DATED 06.02.2018 ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE PETITION FILED BY THE REVISION PETITIONER DATED 11.06.2019 ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION TO ACCEPT AND CONSIDER THE AFORESAID 4 DOCUMENTS ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN THE DOMESTIC INQUIRY AGAINST THE REVISION PETITIONER TAKEN FROM THE INQUIRY FILE PRODUCED BY THE MANAGEMENT BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT DULY CERTIFIED DATED 04.02.2016, 15.02.2016, 16.03.2016 ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN THE DOMESTIC INQUIRY TAKEN FROM THE INQUIRY FILE PRODUCED BY THE MANAGEMENT BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
-CUM-LABOUR COURT DULY CERTIFIED DATED 16.10.2015 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1092 OF 2019 10 ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO.1579/2019 IN SC NO.866/2018 DATED 22.08.2019 ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET ISSUED BY THE BPCL KOCHI REFINERY DATED 23.12.2015 IN THE DOMESTIC ENQUIRY ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE PUNISHMENT ORDER DATED 06.03.2018 ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MP NO.1/2018 DATED 23.09.2019 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE LSN