Madras High Court
K. Jayaramanuju vs Janakaraj And Others on 15 February, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997CRILJ1623, 1996(1)CTC470
ORDER
1. This revision has been preferred by the first informant in the police case against the order of acquittal passed by learned Judicial magistrate. Gingee dated 7-1-93 in C.C. No. 63 of 1991, in respect of the offence under Section 294. I.P.C.
2. According to the prosecution, on 11-6-1990 at 7.00 p.m. while PW-1 Jaya Ramanujam was sitting in the pial of PW-2 Purusothaman along with PW-2, PW-3, Sundaresan and one Madavarajan, the 1st respondent/accused came in a cycle and scolded PW-1 by saying (Vernacular matter is omitted ....... Ed.) The motive attributed to the accused for having uttered these words was that PW-1 Jayaramanujam has supported one Madhavarajan, who was enemically disposed of towards the accused. Immediately. PW-1 gave the complaint Ex. P1 to the police, who in turn registered the case, conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the 1st respondent accused under Section 294, I.P.C.
3. The trial Court after elaborate trial, acquitted the accused on three grounds :-
(i) Though the occurrence took place on 11-6-1990, the First Information Report has reached the concerned Magistrate on 14-6-1990. That delay of three days has not been properly explained by the prosecution.
(ii) The Sub-Inspector of Police, who has investigated the case has not been examined.
(iii) There is no evidence to prove the ingredients of the offence under Section 294 C.P.C., viz., uttering of obscene words to the annoyance of others. Against this judgment, the first informant being the aggrieved petitioner filed this revision.
4. Heard Mr. Thirugnanam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Maninarayanan, learned counsel for 1st respondent and Mr. P. Govindarajan, learned Government Advocate appearing for 2nd respondent/State.
5. Time and again the Courts have clearly held that in the matter of revision against acquittal, that too, by a private party in a police case, the Court should not incline to interfere with the findings on fact rendered by the Court below. Taking into consideration of the principles and scope on the powers of revision as held by this Court as well as by the Apex Court, I find in this instant revision, that there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the findings given by the trial Court. On going through the judgment of the trial Court, I find that the findings recorded by the Court below on three grounds referred above are well merited and have been arrived at after a careful, exhaustive and proper analysis and consideration of both oral and documentary evidence on record. A cursory perusal of the Judgment of the Court below would disclose that the learned trial Magistrate have elaborately considered the relevant and vital materials on record in arriving at the conclusions to acquit the 1st respondent/accused, rejecting the case of prosecution. To prove the offence under Section 294, I.P.C. mere utterance of obscene words are not sufficient, but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in this case.
6. In the light of the above and having regard to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the trial magistrate could not be said to be at error in acquitting the 1st respondent/accused. The finding of acquittal is based on sound and proper reasoning. As such, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of trial Magistrate, and there is no justification to interfere with the same.
7. In that view, the revision is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
8. Revision dismissed.