Radhakrishna Bhat vs G.M. Mukri and Others

Rathnakala, J.—Heard.

This Criminal appeal is filed challenging the judgment of acquittal recorded by the court below.

The respondents herein who were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 4 respectively. The accused were charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 500 of IPC.

The facts succinctly stated on the complaint lodged by the complainant, the case was registered by the respondent police and after investigation charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Section 500 of IPC. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant accused was procured. Their plea in respect of the offence under 500 of IPC was recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty. It is said that subsequently accused No. 2 expired and A3 absconded. The case was spilt up and spilt charge sheet was filed. After a full fledged trial the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused Nos. 1 and 4 of the charges.

Sri G.M. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the first respondent/accused No. 1 while working as Account Superintendent at the Taluka Panchayath office, at his instance defamatory news was published in Vijayakirana newspaper against the appellant herein. Respondent No. 2/news reporter for newspaper was responsible for furnishing the defamatory news in the newspaper. During the rebuttal evidence the first respondent himself had produced Ex. D.1, the reply submitted by him to the show cause notice, which was verbatim published in the newspaper, since he had furnished the copy of the said letter to the newspaper. At the same time, the complainant had filed a civil suit for damages against all the four accused and the suit is decreed against accused Nos. 3 and 4. The trial Court on a wrong appreciation of the evidence held that Ex. P.1 falls under 9th Explanation of Section 499 of IPC and acquitted the accused persons. No document is produced by accused No. 4 to show that he is not the reporter of the newspaper Vijayakirana. The trial Court has without appreciating the case of the complainant has acquitted the accused persons, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. Hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (accused Nos. 1 and 4) deserve be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC.

Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 represented through their learned Counsels supported the judgment of the Court below.

As such, the first respondent herein is said to be the incharge Treasury Officer as on the alleged date of incident. As per the case of the complainant, Vijayakirana newspaper published news, defamatory in nature against the complainant in respect of the incident that occurred in the Government Office between the complainant and the first accused. Though notice was issued by the complainant to the accused, calling upon them to withdraw the news item, except accused No. 1 others did not respond.

During the trial, the complainant examined himself as P.W. 1 and an independent witness/P.W. 2. Accused No. 1 examined himself as D.W. 1. His case was, since the complainant himself had published a defamatory article in Samyuktha Karnataka and Udaya Vani against him, he was called upon up to give explanation to his higher authorities. Accordingly, he gave his reply to the said show cause notice as per Ex. D.1 and it was a private correspondence between himself and his higher authorities and he had no intention to defame the complainant and he did not supply any such news to Vijayakirana newspaper. In order to protect his own interest, he had furnished the copy of Ex. D.1 to Human Rights Commission and had no intention to malign the reputation of the complainant. The stand of accused No. 4 all the while was, he was not the reporter of the Vijayakirana newspaper. The learned trial Court in the body of it''s judgment observes that the complainant had not produced any material to hold that accused No. 4 is the reporter of Vijayakirana newspaper. As regards, accused No. 1 was concerned, the question of accused No. 1 supplying the news to accused No. 4 does not arise since he is not the reporter of Vijayakirana newspaper and the complainant had failed to prove that accused No. 1 supplied such news to accused No. 4. The complainant failed to prove that the allegations at Ex. D.1, were made with an intention to malign the reputation of the complainant. With such line of reasoning, accused Nos. 1 and 4 are acquitted of the charges.

In my considered opinion, the learned Magistrate did not fall into error in fixing the burden on the complainant to prove the nexus of accused No. 4 to the Vijayakirana newspaper as its reporter and until the complainant proved his allegation successfully, no burden shifted to the accused to rebut the initial presumption arising from the case of the prosecution. As far accused No. 4 is concerned, the events have transpired in chronological order; because of some untoward incident that occurred in the office between accused No. 1 and the complainant, the news item was published in Samyuktha Karnataka newspaper dated 08.01.2013, in which complainant was the reporter. Consequent upon which the higher authorities of accused No. 1 called upon his explanation about such news item and he was obliged to submit his explanation to the said show cause notice as Ex. D.1. A complimentary copy of the said explanation is submitted to the Chief Editor of Samyuktha Karnataka (in which complainant was serving as reporter) and also to the Human Rights Commission.

The learned Magistrate on appreciation of the evidence has found that the complainant has not established that the allegation made in this letter was to defame the complainant. The events that have flown right from the date the news item against accused No. 1 was firstly published in Samyuktha Karnataka newspaper and there is no frame of intentional defamation caused by accused No. 1. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that the criminal case against accused No. 3/the editor of Vijayakiran is still pending. Appreciation of the evidence of the Court below, is proper and on sound reasons and there are no valid reasons to entertain the appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.