Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, when the petitioner/accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied the allegations and reported no defence evidence on his side.

9. The trial Court, having considered the submissions made and analyzed the evidence on record, found the petitioner/accused guilty of the offences under Sections 504, 506, 228 and 353 of IPC and sentenced him as stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred the subject Criminal Appeal No.101 of 5 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi 2017 before the Court below and the Court below, on re-appreciation of the evidence on record, set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner/accused of the offences under Sections 228, 353 and 504 of IPC and confirmed the sentence and conviction recorded against the petitioner/accused of the offence under Section 506 of IPC. Challenging the same, the petitioner/accused filed this Criminal Revision Case.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that the Court below, while rightly setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner/accused of the offences under Sections 228, 353 and 504 of IPC, erred in recording conviction and sentence against him of the offence under Section 506 of IPC. The allegation against the petitioner/accused, taken on its face value, does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 506 of IPC. To attract the offence under Section 506 of IPC, the intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. Mere allegation that the petitioner/accused abused PW.1 in filthy language and disturbed the Court work does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 506 of IPC. PW.4, a crucial witness to speak about the call allegedly made by the petitioner/accused to PW.1 through his coin box, did not support the case of prosecution. The finding of the Court below that PW.1 cannot 6 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi have any motive to foist a false case against the petitioner/accused cannot be a ground to convict the petitioner/accused of the offence under Section 506 of IPC. The order under challenge is illegal, improper and irregular as regards the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner/accused of the offence under Section 506 of IPC and ultimately prayed to allow the Criminal Revision Case as prayed for.

11. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the judgment impugned in this Criminal Revision Case and contended that there are no circumstances to interfere with the impugned judgment. The petitioner/accused intentionally insulted PW.1 in filthy language by calling him over telephone and disturbed the Court work. The evidence placed on record clinchingly proves the guilt of the petitioner/accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 506 of IPC. Though the trial Court convicted the petitioner/accused of the offences under Sections 228, 353, 504 and 506 of IPC, the Court below acquitted the petitioner/accused of the offences under Sections 228, 353 and 504 of IPC. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner/accused are untenable and ultimately prayed to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.

14. In the above context in regard to the scope and limitation imposed on Revisional Court, I deem it proper to evaluate the evidence on record, in order to find out as to whether the prosecution has established that the petitioner/accused is guilty of the offence under Section 506 of IPC, and if not, whether the petitioner/accused is entitled for acquittal at the hands of Revisional court.

15. In the instant case, the allegation against the petitioner/accused is that he called PW.1 over telephone and abused him in filthy language addressing him and disturbed the Court work. The trial Court convicted the petitioner/accused of the offences under Sections 228, 353, 504 and 506 of IPC. However, on appeal, the Court below, while acquitting the petitioner/accused of the offences 9 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi under Sections 228, 353 and 504 of IPC, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed against him of the offence under Section 506 of IPC.