Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The respondent filed charge-sheet against the petitioner under Sections 504, 505(1)(c) and 509 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and the same was taken cognizance of in C.C.No.62 of 2019.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had posted certain derogatory objectionable comment/message against women journalists and P.W.2, in his Facebook social media posting and such message posting was done with an intention to humiliate and destroy human values of feminine gender, in the media field and thereby, public peace and tranquillity was affected and therefore, the petitioner had committed the offence(s) under various provisions https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis of the IPC and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The investigating officer had initially filed the final report before IInd Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and in view of the petitioner being a former Member of Legislative Assembly, representing Mylapore Constituency during the year 2006-2011, the case was thereafter transmitted to the Assistant Sessions Court, Additional Special Court for trial of Criminal cases related to the elected MPs and MLAs of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.

14. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

15. A reading of the entire materials available on record and even the cross-examination of P.W.2, admittedly, the petitioner has forwarded the message in the Facebook, but according to the petitioner, it was only forwarded by him and somebody sent to him and without reading that, he just forwarded the message of some other person, but after seeing the message, he immediately removed the same. Ex.P-3 shows that the petitioner himself https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis admitted that he forwarded the message, but without reading the same, he had forwarded the message, which is a matter of appreciation of evidence. A perusal of the entire cross-examination of P.W.2, it cannot be stated that the petitioner was not aware of the contents of the message. Knowing fully well and knowing the consequences only, he had forwarded the same. Since there was agitation against the contents, he had tendered apology and removed the message from Facebook.

16. However, considering the nature of the contents of the message, it is seen that the de-facto complainant is not ready to accept the apology. A reading of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, especially the cross-examination of the petitioner, clearly shows that the petitioner had forwarded the Facebook message and he was well aware of the contents of the Facebook message, he also admitted that, after receiving the objection, it could be seen that it is unbelievable that after receiving certain response from the Facebook, the petitioner, without reading the contents, simply deleted his message and therefore, the petitioner was not aware of the contents and therefore, certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the original content from the electronic records, which is not necessary, however, the prosecution produced Ex.P-3 and on a reading of the cross-examination of P.W.2, it is clear that ExP-3 - certificate is sufficient and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis therefore, when once the prosecution has proved that the petitioner sent the message in the Facebook, as stated above.