Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(xiii). The learned Appellate Court misconstrued that the mandatory requirements under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act need not be followed since the compact discs in the present case has been marked as M.O.Nos.2 and 3. The electronic records cannot be marked as material objects and in such circumstances, the M.O.Nos.2 and 3 needs to be discarded as it has not been produced following the mandatory requirements under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.

(xi). It was also contended that the learned Appellate Court misconstrued that the mandatory requirements under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act need not be followed since the compact discs in the present case has been marked as M.O.Nos.2 and 3. The electronic records cannot be marked as material objects and in such circumstances, the M.O.Nos.2 and 3 needs to be discarded as it has not been produced following the mandatory requirements under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioners would contend that the Revision Petitioner in Crl.RC(MD)No.330 of 2019 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  CRL.RC(MD)Nos.330 & 641 of 2019 and others have formed a private trust. Due to misunderstanding between the trustees so many litigation are pending between the parties. While so, on 13.01.2012, when the Revision Petitioner along with others went to his office at Meenakshi Mission Hospital, the defacto complainant along with others at the instigation of other trustees made a quarrel with the Revision Petitioner and others and thereafter, the defacto complainant gave a false complaint against these Revision Petitioners and others. The Courts below failed to consider the disputes between the parties with regard to the Trust and the disputed property also coming under the Trust. The complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant with male fide intention and to harass the Revision Petitioners at the instigation of the other trustees. The prosecution has examined P.w.1 to P.w.7 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and also marked M.Os.1 to 3. The P.w.1 is said to be a victim and P.w.2 and P.w.3 are said to be eye witnesses. The prosecution evidences are not cogent and they are filled with doubts. In fact, the Trial Court has framed charges as against the Accused for the offences under Sections 294b, 427, 447, 506(ii) IPC and the Revision Petitioner/1st Accused in Crl.RC(MD)No.330 of 2019 is concerned, he was acquitted from the charges under Section 323 and 506(2) IPC. As far as the Revision Petitioner/2nd Accused in Crl.RC(MD)No.641 of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  CRL.RC(MD)Nos.330 & 641 of 2019 2019 is concerned, she was acquitted from the charges under Section 294(b), 323, 427 and 506(2) IPC but only convicted under Section 447 IPC. As per the First Information Report, it is stated that more than 5 Accused were involved in this case and FIR also registered under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 427, 447 and 506(ii) IPC. But the charge sheet was filed by deleting Section 147 IPC. It shows the malafide intention of the complainant to rope the Petitioners in the above said criminal case. Therefore, the prosecution case is highly doubtful. Further, there is no ingredients to constitute the offences under Sections 294(b), 427 and 447 IPC. The main contention of the prosecution is that the Accused damaged the camera but there is no mention about the damages in which part of the camera was damaged and what is the value of the damaged property and further the M.Os 2 and 3 CDs were taken from the original recording of electronic records and thereby, Section 65B of Evidence Act certificate is mandatory to prove the same. But in this case, the prosecution failed to produce the certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act. Further, the Revision Petitioner in Crl.RC(MD)No.330 of 2019 is also one of the trustee and he was removed from the Trust without following the procedure and thereby, the Civil Suit is also pending. While so, the question of trespass https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  CRL.RC(MD)Nos.330 & 641 of 2019 would not arise. As far as the offence under Section 294(b) is concerned, the offence only took place in private place and there is no evidence that the annoyance caused to the witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. But the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court without considering the above said discrepancies and the legal aspects have erroneously convicted the Accused. Therefore, the judgment and conviction passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court are liable to be set aside by allowing this Revision petition.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent would contend that these Revision Petitioners/Accused are not law abiding citizens and they unlawfully entered into the hospital premises and assaulted the staff of the hospital and also abused with obscene words and damaged the camera and thereby, the complaint was lodged as against the 1st Accused. The Revision Petitioner namely S.Ramesh was removed from the trusteeship of the trustee and Civil Suit is also pending. During the pendency of the litigation, the Petitioners entered into the premises and committed the above said offences. In order to prove the case of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  CRL.RC(MD)Nos.330 & 641 of 2019 prosecution, they have examined P.w.1 to P.w.7 and marked M.Os 1 to 3. The prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the assault made by the Accused, obscene words uttered by them and damages caused to the camera. All the witnesses have clearly deposed about the acts done by the A1 and A2. The Trial Court after consideration of these aspects correctly convicted the Accused. As far as the Section 65B of Evidence Act certificate is concerned, since the original camera itself was produced before the Court, no question of secondary evidence would arise and thereby, the argument with regard to Section 65B of Evidence Act is groundless. Under Section 85B of Evidence Act, there is a presumption for the electronic evidence and further the victim sustained injury on his finger and he had taken treatment and the doctor also examined and he stated about the injury sustained by the victim. These Revision Petitioners have not complied the conditions imposed by this Court and NBW is pending against the Revision Petitioner in Crl.RC(MD)No.641 of 2019. Thereby, they are not law abiding citizens and no any leniency shown to these Petitioners. The scope of interference to the concurrent judgments in Revision petition is limited and there is no any ground to interfere with the judgments of Courts below. The judgments of Courts below are well reasoned and thereby, the Revision https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  CRL.RC(MD)Nos.330 & 641 of 2019 Petitions are liable to be dismissed.