T. Louis Chinnappa @ T. Chetan Pratap Reddy vs T. Joseph and T. Martin

K.N. Keshava Narayana, J.—These appeals filed u/s 378(4) of Cr.P.C. are directed against the judgments and order dated 11.03.2008 passed in C.C. Nos. 12605/2003, 12607/2003 and 12604/2003, acquitting the respondent(s)/accused persons of the charge levelled against him/them for the offences punishable u/s 500 r/w 120-B of IPC.

The common appellant in these appeals was the complainant before the Court below. He filed three private complaints against the respondent(s)/accused herein alleging offence u/s 500 r/w. 120-B of IPC inter alia contending that, during the course of the investigation in Crime No. 370/1998 on the file of the HAL police station, the respondent/s have made statements before the Investigating Officer, in which they have made defamatory statements against the complainant with an intention to defame him and to lower his reputation in the public, as such, they have committed the aforesaid offence. The respondent(s)/accused pleaded not guilty for the accusation made against him/them. After the trial, the learned Magistrate by independent judgments passed on 11.03.2008, acquitted the accused persons in all the three cases. It is against the said judgments of acquittal, the complainant has presented these appeals u/s 378(4) of Cr.P.C.

Upon service of notice of these appeals, the respondent(s)/accused have appeared through his/their Counsel. I have heard the appellant, who has appeared in person and perused the records as well as the judgment under appeal.

The learned Magistrate while acquitting the accused, recorded a finding that the complainant has failed to prove the alleged statements stated to have been made by the accused before the police during their investigation. The learned Magistrate has further opined that, the alleged statements are not defamatory, therefore, the accused are not guilty of the offence alleged. No doubt, in order to prove the statements said to have been made by the accused before the Investigating Officer, the complainant has examined the very Police Officer, as PW.3 in all these cases. No doubt, PW.3 in his evidence has stated that he conducted investigation In Crime No. 370/1998 of HAL Police Station and during investigation he recorded statements of several witnesses. However, he does not remember the persons who made statements before him during investigation of that case and also he was not in a position to identify them. No doubt the statements made u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. before the Police Officer during investigation is not exempted from the purview of Section 499, and such statements cannot be claimed as privilege statements u/s 132 of the Indian Evidence Act. In order to prove the offence u/s 500 of IPC, the following ingredients, as required by Section 499 of IPC are required to be established:

i) Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person;

ii) Such imputation must have been made:

a) by words either spoken intended to be read, or

b) by signs or

c) by visible representation.

iii) Such imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or with knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerning whom it is made.

In the cases on hand, the learned Magistrate having regard to the evidence on record has held that the complainant has failed to prove that the accused persons made any such statement before the police. The so-called statements do not bear the signatures of the accused persons. The alleged statements produced and marked as Exs. P1 to P3 in this case, do not indicate as to in which case those statements have been recorded. The Investigating Officer, who was examined as PW.3, merely says that he recorded the statements of several witnesses, but he does not remember the details of those statements. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has rightly held that the complainant has failed to prove that statements produced at Exs. P1 to P3 were of the accused persons. Similarly, the learned Magistrate has also noticed that even if those statements were assumed to have been made by the accused persons, those statements are not defamatory. Admittedly, Crime No. 370/98 came to be registered on a private complaint filed by the very complainant in these appeals. The said complaint came to be referred to the police for investigation u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. In the said complaint filed against T. Joseph, C. Arogyswamy and A. Francis, Accused-1 to 3 in Crime No. 370/98, the appellant-complainant had alleged acts of forgery that they have forged the signature of his father and have fabricated a sale deed in respect of an immovable property, though his father had not executed the sale deed. It was during the investigation of that case, the accused in these cases stated to have made the statements. In the light of the allegations made in the said complaint, the accused therein were entitled to defend their interest, and for that purpose they were entitled to make statements clarifying the circumstances in which the document came into existence and to justify the transaction. Such a statement falling under 9th Exception to Section 499 of IPC would not be defamatory. According to this exception, it is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another, provided the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or any other person, or for the public good. The alleged defamatory statement was that the appellant had neglected his father and he has deserted his wife. Having regard to the allegation made by the complainant in Crime No. 370/98 that the accused therein had committed acts of forgery of the signature of his father and fabrication of a sale deed, it was well within the right of the accused and the witnesses on their behalf to state the facts, which may lead to disprove the allegation of the complainant therein. Therefore, the said statement has been rightly construed as not defamatory by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate has also found that the alleged statements if read by any person would not in any way indicate that it was defamatory having a tendency of lowering the reputation of a person. The learned Magistrate after proper evaluation of the evidence on record has come to the right conclusion that the accused are not guilty of the offences alleged. The judgments of the learned Magistrate do not suffer from any illegality, as such, there is no scope for interference by this Court.

In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in these appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.