K.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the accused in C.C.No. 1061/1996 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Ernakulam. He was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 353 and 294 (b) of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that due to enmity towards PW1, on 30.9.1995, at about 3.45 p.m., the petitioner, after having consumed alcohol, assaulted CW1, who is a public servant, to deter him from discharging his official duties as the Mechanical Engineer of the KSRTC depot, Ernakulam and uttered obscene words to him during the course of the same transaction, thus committing the offence alleged. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and marked Exts.P1 to P4. The petitioner did not adduce any evidence. After considering the evidence of the prosecution, the Magistrate convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 249 (b) of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The petitioner filed Crl.Appeal No.495/2000 before the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. The Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction for the offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, but confirmed the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is challenging the judgments of the courts below. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgments of the courts below do not state the obscene words alleged to have been uttered by the petitioner and as such, the petitioner could not have been convicted under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code also. It is further submitted that PW1 had enmity towards the petitioner and because of that enmity, he had foisted a false case against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the evidence relied upon by the courts below is that of the subordinate officers of PW1, the complainant who can only be expected to support their superior officer. Therefore, their evidence could not have been relied upon by the courts below.

(2.) ON the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that in the evidence of PWs 1, 5 and 6, the exact obscene words used by the petitioner have been specifically stated. Based on that only the lower courts entered a finding that the petitioner has used obscene words so as to be found guilty under Section 294 (b) of the Indian Penal Code. The mere fact that the lower courts did not reiterate in the judgment, the obscene words used by the petitioner is no ground to hold that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged against him. It is further submitted that the evidence of PWs 1, 5 and 6 is conclusive enough to prove the guilt of the petitioner under Section 294(b). They have been cross examined by the petitioner and the petitioner could not cause any dent in their evidence. It is submitted that there is no rule of law that subordinate officers of a superior officer will not say the truth where the superior officer is the complainant. It is pointed out that in an office the only witness available would be the staff of that office and the prosecution cannot bring witnesses from outside. Therefore, even if the witnesses are subordinate officers of the complainant, their evidence has to be evaluated for their intrinsic worth and cannot be discarded only on the ground that they are subordinate officers of the complainant. Therefore, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, there is no reason to interfere with the decisions of the courts below.

(3.) AFTER considering the arguments on both sides, I am inclined to agree with the learned Public Prosecutor. Of course, the exact obscene words used by the petitioner are not reproduced in the judgments of the courts below. But, it has been held that the petitioner has used obscene words. The exact obscene words used by the petitioner are specifically spoken to PWs 1, 5 and 6, in their evidence. The petitioner did not cross examine them on that point also. Perhaps, like me, the lower courts also could not bring themselves to state the exact words used by the petitioner, in the judgment for obvious reasons. Insofar as the evidence contains the exact words used by the petitioner, which words are clearly obscene words, the fact that the lower courts did not reproduce those words in the judgment is no reason to acquit the petitioner.