Arun Kumar vs Sudarshan Kumar and others

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.—Prayer in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 37384 of 2011 is for condonation of delay of 29 days in filing CRM-A No. 519-MA of 2011. In Criminal Miscellaneous Application bearing No. CRM-A 519-MA of 2011, special leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of acquittal, dated 9.12.2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar, wherein the allegations against the respondents were that they committed the offence punishable u/s 500, IPC. The brief facts of the present case are that the applicant-complainant, Arun Kumar, presented a complaint before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar, alleging that the respondents narrated to the residents of Azimgarh that the applicant-complainant was maintaining illicit relations with Renu. Raj Kumar son of Om Parkash (CW-1) and Raj Kumar son of Bhagwana Ram (CW-2) heard the respondents levelling the allegations against the applicant-complainant. The respondents in connivance with each other, in order to deliberately defame the applicant-complainant, levelled such bald allegations regarding his illicit relations with Renu. Resultantly, the applicant-complainant was defamed and people started doubting his character. It was further alleged that the respondents filed a case, titled as Dr. Sudarshan Kumar and others v. Suresh Kumar and another, before the Civil Court at Abohar, with the averment that the applicant-complainant had illicit relations with Renu, widow of Roshan Lal, his aunt (widow of the brother of his father). As a result of which, the reputation of the applicant-complainant was lowered in the estimation of the local people. The applicant-complainant served a notice upon the respondents, but they did not respond to the same.

After preliminary evidence, the respondents-accused were summoned to face trial for the offence punishable u/s 500, IPC. After their appearance, learned Trial Court served them with the notice of accusation, for the offence punishable u/s 500, IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to substantiate his allegations, the applicant-complainant appeared as CW-3 and also examined Raj Kumar, son of Om Parkash, as CW-1 and Raj Kumar, son of Bhagwana Ram, as CW-2. After the evidence of the applicant-complainant was over, the statements of the respondents-accused were recorded in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the allegations and pleaded their false implication. No evidence in defence was led.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondents-accused, inter alia, on the following grounds:-

(i) Copy of the plaint (Ex.-C10) does not contain the defamatory averments. In para 10 of the said plaint it was mentioned, "......Smt. Renu widow of Roshan Lal developed some doubtful relations with her nephew Arun Kumar..."

(ii) Neither the Presiding Officer in whose Court the civil suit was filed nor the Reader or Ahlmad attached to the said Court, were examined by the complainant;

(iii) There was no publication of the document containing the alleged defamatory averments, therefore, no offence attracting the mischief of Section 500, IPC, was made out;

(iv) The applicant-complainant failed to examine Suresh Kumar and Vinod Kumar, who were arrayed as respondents in the suit filed by the respondents-accused;

(v) No date, time or place has been disclosed by the witnesses with regard to the defamatory statements made by the respondents-accused;

(vi) There were material contradictions, which were going to the root of the case; and

(vii) The applicant-complainant had motive to falsely implicate the respondents-accused since the litigation was going on between them.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the applicant-appellant and gone through the record of the learned Trial Court.

It is settled proposition of law that the Appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When the judgment of the learned Trial Court was neither perverse nor did suffer from any legal infirmity or mis-appreciation of the evidence on record, reversal thereof by the Appellate Court is not justified.

In the present case, the applicant-complainant has miserably failed to connect the respondents-accused, attracting the mischief of defamation. The evidence led by him was highly contradictory. The impugned judgment rendered by the learned Trial Court cannot be termed to be perverse, illegal or based upon misreading and mis-appreciation of the evidence. The presumption of innocence in favour of the respondents-accused has been strengthened after the verdict of acquittal in their favour. The applicant-complainant could not make out a prima facie case for grant of special leave to appeal, therefore, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. CRM-A-519-MA of 2011 fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

As a necessary corollary, CRM No. 37384 of 2011, seeking condonation of delay of 29 days in filing the appeal, is also dismissed. The Registry is directed to send back the record of the learned Trial Court.