Bangalore District Court
Has Been Constantly Being Subjected To vs No.3 Called The Complainant 'A Totally ... on 28 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 28th day of February 2015
Present : Sri J.V.Vijayananda B.Com., LL.B
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT U/S.355 OF Cr.P.C..
1.C.C.No. 25137/2012
2.Date of Offence 30-3-2010
3.Complainant Dilshathu Beegam T.
4.Accused 1. Premadas, aged 58 Years,
Officer-G and The Officer in
charge, Chemistry Laboratory,
Atomic Minerals Directorate for
Exploration and Research, Dept.
of Atomic Energy, Southern
Region, AMD Complex,
Nagarabhavi, Bangalore.
2. Anitha Mary Thomas, aged
47 years, Scientific Officer-F
Chemistry Laboratory, Atomic
Minerals Directorate for Exploration
and Research, Dept. of Atomic
Energy, Southern Region, AMD
Complex, Begumpet, Hyderabad
3. Usha Nathan, aged 53 years,
Scientific Officer-F Chemistry
Laboratory, Atomic Minerals
Directorate for Exploration and
Research, Dept. of Atomic Energy,
Southern Region, Nagarabhavi,
Bangalore.
5. Offences complained U/s.500 and 120(b) of IPC.
of
2 C.C.No.25137/2012
6.Plea A1 to 3 pleaded not guilty.
7.Final Order A1 to 3 are Acquitted
8.Date of Order 28-2-2015
REASONS
The complainant Miss. Dilshathu Beegam T. has filed
this private complaint against accused Nos.1 to 3 alleging
offences U/s.500 and 120(b) of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, she is
the Scientific Officer-D in Atomic Minerals Directorate for
Exploration and Research, Dept. of Atomic Energy,
Nagarabhavi, Bangalore. The accused Nos.1 to 3 are her
senior colleagues. The accused No.1 is a Scientific Officer-G
and the Officer-in-charge (OIC) of Chemistry Laboratory of the
Directorate's Southern Region at Bangalore. The accused Nos.
2 and 3 are Scientific Officers-F. The accused No.2 was
previously working in Bangalore and is presently working in
Hyderabad office.
3. Since the accused No.1 has taken charge as the Officer
in Charge of the Chemistry Laboratory in July 2009, the
complainant has been constantly being subjected to
discrimination, torture and harassment. She had pleasant
experiences of working under the regimes of two other officers-
in-charge Dr.G.Chakrapani and Dr.K.Sathyanarayana, before
the first accused took charge as the OIC. During those
3 C.C.No.25137/2012
periods the complainant had been given equal importance and
status in all major events in the office. Those officers had
given her several important assignments independently or in
association with her senior colleagues including themselves.
They had never shown any hesitation to give her the due
credits of her works and efforts. They have also given her a lot
of opportunities to participate in a number of seminars and
symposiums. Presumably, the accused felt grudge on it and
tried to tarnish her image.
4. After the accused No.1 took over charge, he used to
deny the complainant her legitimate opportunities in the office
due to his spite. He hatched a criminal conspiracy with other
two accused persons to defame her and isolate her in all
official matters and duties. As part of it, the accused persons
have undertaken a campaign of malice, initially by murmuring
and then frankly and openly, against her.
5. The accused No.3 was making disparaging remarks
about the parentage of the complainant. She has been making
such remarks as if she knew the complainant's parents
personally and intimately, whereas she had never seen them
in her life and no knowledge about them, directly or indirectly.
Once she made such remarks in front of the complainant to
Dr.Sathyanarayana (former Officer-in-charge) in a sarcastic
manner and she said that the complainant was free to marry
anyone since her parents belonged to different religions. Her
tone in the language was to ridicule the parentage of the
4 C.C.No.25137/2012
complainant as if her parents had engaged in an ignominious
marriage. The parents of the complainant are belonged to
same community and hailed from highly reputable families.
The accused No.3 had been making such remarks to bring
disrespect to the complainant in the estimation of others and
to create a bad impression on others about her as if she is a
pedigree in a disreputable marriage. Several persons in the
office of the complainant believed the words of the 3rd accused
and it defamed her.
6. The accused Nos.1 to 3 in furtherance of their common
object and as part of their agreement in conspiracy, made
deliberate attempts to undermine the professional competency
of the complainant in front of others which is unbecoming of
his position as an officer-in-charge of nationally prestigious
institution. The accused No.1 has been denying the
complainant all her legitimate opportunities in the office and
labs. No matter whom it was a sweeper or a senior officer of
the Directorate. The credit given by the 1st accused to the
complainant in the work efficiency component of PRIS
(Performance Related Incentive Scheme) was zero which had
no justification and was against the methods to be followed in
awarding PRIS scores. By this he articulated a message to all
others that the complainant was an inefficient officer whereas
her performances were appreciated as remarkable during the
tenures of the two previous officers-in-charge. When the
complainant made a complaint of it, the 1st accused openly
described her as a 'stupid idiot lady' in front of others. His
violent shouting at her continued for more than one hour
5 C.C.No.25137/2012
inside the laboratory on 30-3-2010. He declared that the
complainant has been making such complaints out of her
jealousy towards others who were able to get better scores
than her in PRIS.
7. When other officers of her same grade were given
training on an important instrument called ICP AES, the
complainant alone was denied that opportunity. He declared
that he had not permitted training to the complainant on that
instrument as she was not competent even to touch it. He
made the complainant to depend on others to get the readings
of her sample from ICP AES. It was also an attempt to ridicule
the complainant in front of others. Thereafter, the
complainant had to approach higher officers of the Directorate
to get training on ICP AES and to handle it independently. She
was given the responsibility of operation and maintenance of
only minor instruments, which hardly require any operating
skill, by the 1st accused in order to degrade her technical
proficiency.
8. The accused No.1 has been denying the complainant's
opportunities to participate in important seminars and
symposiums which she had been enjoying during the tenure of
other officers-in-charge. The 1st accused had even suppressed
the recommendation of the complainant's name in an
important seminar made by a superior officer of the
directorate to deny her that opportunity. Without involving
her in any research and development programs and without
6 C.C.No.25137/2012
participating her in any seminars or symposiums to enable the
complainant to express her subject knowledge and expose her
professional competency, the accused were making false and
disparaging remarks about her proficiency. The most
humiliating and defamatory of all are the deliberate attempts
made by the accused to represent the complainant as a
mentally imbalanced and psychologically ill patient before
other colleagues. On 12-1-2011 the accused No.1 asked Dr.
Roopa Bose, another colleague of the complainant, to take the
complainant to a psychiatrist at the earliest, even during the
office hours and he promised to arrange official conveyance for
that purpose.
9. Dr.Roopa Bose is a person sharing sympathy with the
complainant in the office. There was a previous attempt made
by the accused to estrange Dr.Roopa from the complainant.
Though the accused were initially successful in creating
certain misunderstandings in Dr.Roopa's mind, the
complainant was able to clear it very soon. Also, the accused
were furious on the complainant for her making a detailed
formal reporting against them to the higher authorities on the
ongoing harassment and discrimination on 6-1-2011. It was
under this context that the 1st accused approached Dr.Roopa
with the request to take the complainant to a psychiatrist.
With this request, made by the official superior apparently in
his discharge of official duties, the accused No.1 made
Dr.Roopa to believe that the complainant had been suffering
from certain psychological disorders.
7 C.C.No.25137/2012
10. The complainant had no psychological problems to
consult a psychiatrist. The accused No.1 has no business to
ask a colleague of the complainant to take her to a psychiatrist
except to disparage and defame her. He had no good faith in
making such request to Dr.Roopa Bose. The accused have told
several others in the office that the complainant has been
suffering from mental illness.
11. The 2nd accused has been nurturing spite against the
complainant since the beginning of her career itself. She has
been misusing her power as the senior officer to disparage her
in every respect and has been trying to mislead the officers-in-
charge that she has severe behavioral problems. She, after
joining the other accused was actively conspiring to present
complainant as highly inefficient who is unable to take up any
assignment independently. After the accused No.1 has taken
over as the OIC, she has been adopting a commanding
attitude on the complainant and had made her under
compulsion to assist her in the analysis of certain special
samples, in the operation of sophisticated instruments and in
research and development works. The accused had prevented
the complainant in getting due credit of her sincere work
which used to extend beyond office hours many a number of
times, leading to her career being adversely affected through
these years. The accused was in the habit of constantly
urging the complainant to adopt a 'positive body language to
please the OIC', as part of the conspiracy. The accused No.2
reiterated her disparaging views by her statement before the
Departmental Enquiry committee. Her observations that the
8 C.C.No.25137/2012
complainant has 'several behavioral problems and that she is
suffering from inferiority complex' is highly defamatory and is
aimed at tarnishing her reputation before others at office.
12. The accused No.1 has been exercising the discretion
available with the post of OIC against her in all possible ways.
After hatching a conspiracy with other accused, he had
created situations of her being alone in the field camp at a
remote area in Andhra Pradesh a number of times. She was
made to stay there alone as the single lady officer in the entire
camp unmindful of the fact that she is an unmarried young
lady unfamiliar with the local situations of the area. In a
deliberate attempt to completely isolate the complainant in the
office, he has been continuously trying to represent her as
having serious adjustment problems and non-operative with
all the other colleagues, as being emphasized by his statement
before the enquiry committee constituted by the higher
authorities.
13. On 4-2-2011, in front of the accused No.1, the
accused No.3 called the complainant 'a totally psychic lady'
while inside his room. The imputations made by the accused
No.3 about the complainant as mentioned above was intended
to and with the knowledge that it would harm the reputation
of the complainant and is an offence of defamation.
14. Though the complainant tried to find out a solution
through the in-house means by making internal complaints
9 C.C.No.25137/2012
before the higher authorities that was not effective. The two
departmental enquiry committees constituted for probing the
petitions of the complainant were interested only to carry out a
show cause injury and did not make any break through in
holding the accused guilty.
15. There is delay in filing this complaint which is due to
the time taken by her in exploring the in-house solutions of
her grievances and is not willful or deliberate. Among other
grounds the complainant prayed to punish the accused No.1
to 3 for the above referred offences.
16. After receipt of summons, accused Nos.1 to 3 have
appeared through their counsel and they are enlarged on bail.
Thereafter, copy of complaint furnished to the accused Nos.1
to 3. After hearing on both, initially accusation u/s 500 and
120(B) of IPC., has been recorded and read over to the accused
Nos.1 to 3 in the language known to them. They denied the
accusation and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, on two
occasions by virtue of the applications filed by both side
altered accusation has been framed for the said offences and
read over to the accused Nos.1 to 3. They denied the altered
accusation and claimed to be tried. The complainant to prove
her case has been examined herself as P.W.1 and got
examined one witness as P.W.2 and got marked 19 documents
as per Exs.P1 to P19 and closed her side evidence.
17. Thereafter, statements as required u/s 313 of
Cr.P.C., has been recorded and read over to the accused Nos.1
10 C.C.No.25137/2012
to 3. They denied the incriminating evidence appeared against
them but did not choose to adduce defence evidence.
18. Thereafter, I have heard both counsels on main
complaint, perused the evidence on record and documents
produced in this case.
19. At the out set before discussing the evidence on
record it is just and necessary to know settled law on the point
of defamation. The essential ingredients of defamation are
making or publishing any imputation concerning any person.
Such imputation must have been made by words, either
spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible
representation. Further 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. To constitute an offence
of defamation it would be sufficient to show that the accused
intended or knew or had reason to believe that imputation
made by him would harm the reputation of the complainant,
irrespective of whether the complainant actually suffered
directly or indirectly from the imputation alleged unless the
intention of accused to defame the Complainant proved no
offence under defamation. Further it is not necessary that
there should be an intention to harm the reputation. It is
sufficient if there was reason to believe that the imputation
made would harm the reputation if the words were not likely
to harm the reputation, no prosecution would lie. The
meanings of the word harm the reputation not the ordinary
11 C.C.No.25137/2012
sense in which the words is used. By harm meant imputations
on a man's character made and expressed to others, so as to
lower him in their estimation, and that anything which lowers
him merely in his own estimation certainly does not constitute
defamation. The essence of offence of defamation is the harm
caused to the reputation of a person, the use of common
abuses cannot be regarded as conveying any such imputation
as can in anyway harm the reputation of the person towards
whom it is used and it therefore does not constitute the
offence. The background and the circumstances under which
the imputations were made are relevant to arrive at a
conclusion whether the imputations were intended to literally
convey or they were only heard as abuses. There must be
something more than that mere abuse from which it could be
possible to infer that the imputations were made with such
intention of defaming directly or indirectly to the Complainant.
In the absence of any such proof or material howsoever
vituperative the abuses may be, the abuses by themselves may
not be sufficient to constitute the offence of defamation. The
question as to whether the words used, were intended to harm
or had the effect of harming the reputation the court must be
put in possession not only of the words used, but also of the
context in which they were used in order to find out the
intention and the effect of the words. It is necessary to prove
the exact words used by the accused for the purpose of
supporting a conviction for oral defamation. It is sufficient to
prove the purport or substance of the defamatory imputations.
If the case of the Complainant is that each of the accused
made different statement or spoken different words, which are
12 C.C.No.25137/2012
defamatory, then it absolutely necessary that the Complainant
must specify the words spoken or the statements made by
each of the accused.
20. Keeping in view the above settled law on the point of
defamation, now let us consider whether the Complainant has
established her case beyond all reasonable doubt. I have
carefully perused the evidence on record and the documents
produced in this case. Upon careful perusal of the entire
allegation in the complaint it goes without saying that the
allegation of imputation is by words spoken within the office
working by both accused persons as well as complainant
concerning the complainant with an intention to harm or
having reason to believe that such imputation would harm her
reputation. Therefore, in order to prove the imputation by
spoken words, first of all the complainant has to prove that
the accused No.1 to 3 intentionally imputed her by words
spoken which words are defamatory in nature intending to
harm her or having reason to believe that such imputation
would harm her reputation.
21. The testimony of PW.1 indicating that from
September 2003 to 3rd February 2014 she worked as
Scientific Officer-D in the Atomic Minerals, Directorate for
Exploration and Research in Southern Region, Nagarabhavi,
Bangalore. The accused Nos.1 to 3 are her senior colleagues
at Bangalore. The accused No.1 is the Scientific Officer-G and
was the officer in-charge of Chemistry Laboratory at
Bangalore. The accused Nos.2 and 3 are the Scientific
13 C.C.No.25137/2012
Officers-F working in Bangalore. During her tenure in
Nagarabhavi she had worked under two officer in-charge by
name G. Chakrapani and Dr. K.Sathyanarayana. It appears
the accused persons are not disputing above assertion of
PW.1.
22. The testimony of PW.1 further indicating that during
her work under the said previous officer in-charge referred
above, she had pleasant experience and there was no
discrimination to her by those officers and no adverse remarks
against her during the said period. Though there was
groupsim right from the joining of the office at Nagarabhavi,
the previous officers were efficiently controlling the same. The
accused No.1 took over the charge of the Nagarabhavi office in
July-2010. Since, then she has been subjected to
discrimination, torture and harassment by all the accused
persons. But PW.1 has not explained the nature of
harassment to her by each accused persons. Her testimony
further indicating that, the accused No.1 hatched criminal
conspiracy with other two accused persons to defame her and
to isolate her in all official matters. However, she was not part
of any group. The accused No.1 was trying to under mine her
professional competency in front of others. But PW.1 has not
explained before whom the accused No.1 has undermined her
and not examined any such persons before the court.
23. The testimony of PW.1 that the accused persons
discriminated, tortured, harassed, made her to isolate in all
official matters and particularly the accused No.1 tried to
14 C.C.No.25137/2012
under mine her professionally in front of others is not
corroborated by any of her collogues by way of entering into
witness box. Her testimony further indicating that accused
No.1 has been denying her legitimate opportunities in the
office and he denied her training in an important instrument
of lab called ICP AES. He openly declared that he had not
permitted her the training since she was not competent even
to touch. There are all other officers of her same grade who
were provided such training by the accused No.1. As stated
above none of the colleagues of complainant have corroborated
the testimony of PW.1 by entering into witness box. Assuming
that the accused persons discriminated, tortured, harassed,
undermined the professional competency of complainant in
front of others and also denied her the opportunities of
participating in an important program that by itself does not
amounts to defamation. In my opinion, if at all the said
alleged act of accused persons only amounts to discrimination
and harassment which leads to disciplinary action by the
departmental higher authority, in fact even it does not
amounts to any criminal offences.
24. It appears the complainant in support of her oral
evidence has produced several representations given to her
higher authorities alleging against accused persons and others
about discrimination, harassment, torture and other
unbecoming act while discharging official duties and requested
for necessary actions. Further she has produced the copies of
the opinion of fact finding committees formed to probe the said
representations of complainant. Even the above referred
15 C.C.No.25137/2012
representations of complainant also indicating the alleged act
of accused persons in making discrimination in the official
matter during the office hours, which only leads to initiation of
disciplinary actions by higher authorities against accused
persons but at no stretch of imagination it amounts to
defamation. Moreover, the fact finding committees have not
given report in favour of the complainant.
25. The testimony of PW.1 further indicating that, the
accused No.1 was in the habit of insulting her in front of other
colleagues. The complainant has not stated nature of insult to
her and even she has not stated the names of said colleagues
before whom the accused No.1 has insulted so. Moreover, she
has not examined any of them to prove her testimony. In order
to know whether the said insult amounts to defamation or not,
deposing of exact insult words or act by accused No.1 is
necessary but PW.1 has not stated the exact words used or
any act of accused No.1 in insulting her.
26. The testimony of PW.1 further indicating that
accused No.1 has recommended for credit of zero to her in the
intermix i.e., in under performance related incentive scheme
(PRIS). In this regard on her making complaint to accused
No.1, he openly called her as stupid idiot lady in front of other
colleagues. Even here the complainant has not stated the
names of her colleagues before whom the accused No.1 called
her as stupid idiot lady and has not examined any of them to
prove the same. Moreover, no acceptable explanation is offered
for non examination of any one before the court. It is to be
16 C.C.No.25137/2012
noted here that, though the complainant has examined her
one of colleagues as PW.2, but the said PW.2 has not
supported her version. As stated above, mere abuse in some
filthy words does not amounts to defamation unless it is
establishes that the said words are spoken with an intention of
harming or with knowledge or having reason to believe that
the said word would harm the reputation of the person. As
stated above, the complainant has not examined any of her
colleagues to prove that the accused No.1 called her as stupid
idiot lady. Even though PW.1 has deposed the same, in my
opinion sole testimony of PW.1 is not sufficient to hold that
even if the accused No.1 called her so, it was with the
intention of harming her reputation in front her colleagues in
the office. In my opinion, there must be some reason for
accused No.1 to call the complainant so. But, PW.1 has not
stated the reason or intention of accused No.1 in calling so. In
the absence of acceptable evidence of intention or reason on
the part of accused No.1 in harming the reputation of
complainant, it cannot be said that the accused No.1 with an
intention to harm the reputation of complainant in front of her
colleague has called her as stupid idiot lady.
27. The testimony of PW.1 further indicating that the
accused No.1 declared that she has been making such
complaints out of jealousy towards other colleagues who
would score well than her in PRIS. Further the accused No.1
shouted at her violently for more than one hour while inside
the lab on 13.3.2010. It appears the complainant to prove the
same has not examined any witnesses more particularly the
17 C.C.No.25137/2012
persons present inside the lab at the time of alleged shouting
by the accused No.1. If really the accused No.1 shouted on the
complainant for more than one hour inside the lab that too
against lady without any reason, at least some body would
have come forward to support the version complainant before
the court. Unfortunately, nobody has come forward to support
the say of complainant. Therefore, a doubt arises to believe
the said testimony of PW.1. Even assuming that accused No.1
has shouted so, mere shouting does not amounts to
defamation, if it at all it leads to disciplinary action by the
higher authority or leads to other criminal prosecution.
28. The testimony of PW.1 further indicating that on
12.1.2011 the accused No.1 asked Dr.Roopa Bose to take her
to a psychiatrist at the earliest. He had promised her to
arrange official conveyance for that purpose. He also told her
that she could take her to psychiatrist at any time even during
the office hours. Accused No.1 wanted to estrange
Dr.Roopa Bose from her since she was sharing sympathy with
her. On 6.1.2011 she had lodged the complaint against
accused Nos.1 to 3 with the higher authorities. It is under
this context the accused No.1 made such request to
Dr.Roopa Bose and made her to believe that she had certain
mental illness. But she does not have any psychological
problem to consult psychiatrist. In order to defame and
tarnish her, the accused No.1 has made such a request to
Dr.Roopa Bose. P.W.2 Dr. Roopa Bose examined by the
complainant has not corroborated the above testimony of
P.W.1. In fact P.W.2 not at all whispered anything regarding
18 C.C.No.25137/2012
direction or advice by accused No.1 to her about taking the
complainant to the psychiatrist. Since P.W.2 has not
supported the complainant's version, she has been treated as
hostile by the learned counsel for the complainant. In the
cross-examination by the learned counsel for complainant,
P.W.2 was suggested that the accused No.1 asked her to take
the complainant to the psychiatrist but she pleaded ignorance.
However, she has not denied the same. Ex.P.5 is the
representation given by P.W.1 against accused No.1 to the
Regional Director AMD/DAE/SR Bangalore dated 20-1-2011
wherein she complained as " on 18-1-2011, Dr. Rooopa Bose,
a senior colleague of mine has told me that she was requested
by Dr.Premadas to accompany me to go to a psychiatrist at the
earliest. She was also told by him that this can be done
during office hours and office vehicle can be arranged for the
same. When I asked him about this the next day he told me
that he has told this to Dr.Roopa Bose as his intention was
only to help me out in dealing with my disturbed mental
condition at any cost and he did so out of the concern which
he got for me." As stated above PW.2 Dr.Roopa Bose not
supported the say of PW.1. No doubt from the evidence of
P.W.1 coupled with averments in Ex.P.5, it is clear that the
accused No.1 has stated so, when P.W.1 asked about the
reason for the same, accused No.1 has given his reason for
saying so, as out of concern on the complainant. Therefore, in
my opinion, even though the complainant proved that the
accused No.1 has asked PW.1 to take her to psychiatrist, that
does not amounts to defamation for the reason that due to
concern over PW.1, he stated so but not with an intention to
19 C.C.No.25137/2012
defame her in front of her colleague. Some times due to
pressure of work there is every possibility to cause mental
illness, which can be solved by consulting psychiatrist. In
that context, the accused No.1 towards concern over
complainant might have stated so, immediately he has given
his explanation to the complainant as to why he gave such
advice to Dr.Roopa Bose which in my opinion does not
amounts to defamation. If at all it is only an advice on the part
of the accused No.1 who is admittedly higher officer of
complainant i.e., the officer in charge of Department where the
complainant was working. Apart from this, the document at
Ex.P6 addressed by complainant to very same Regional
Director AMD/DAE/SR Bangalore dated 6-1-2011 i.e., before
the date of Ex.P5, she has narrated that due to pressure of
work in the work place her physical and mental health is
adversely affected. When the physical and mental health
condition of P.W.1 so adversely affected, it is not wrong on the
part of head of the Chemistry Laboratory where this PW.1 was
working to give some advice to consult Psychiatrist.
29. As stated above at the repetition of cost any
imputation shall be with an 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
instant case, the evidence of P.W.1 is not sufficient to hold
that the accused No.1 with an intention to defame her has
given an advice to Dr.Roopa Bose to take the complainant to
the Psychiatrist. Moreover, P.W.2 has not stated that due to
said advice of accused No.1 she felt bad towards the
20 C.C.No.25137/2012
complainant. Therefore, at the repetition of cost, even if
accused No.1 has given advice to Dr.Roopa Bose to take P.W.1
to the psychiatrist, it is because of his concern over the
complainant, but not with an intention to harm her. As the
complainant has failed to prove that the accused No.1 with an
intention to defame her has advised Dr. Roopa Bose to take
her to psychiatrist.
30. The testimony of P.W.1 further indicating that
accused No.2 has been nurturing spite against her. She has
been misusing her power as a Senior Officer against her and
has been trying to mislead all the officers' in-charge that she
had certain serious behavioral problems. It appears the
complainant has not examined any officer in-charge who have
misled from the accused No.2. Assuming that the accused
No.2 by misusing her power as a senior Officer has been trying
to mislead all the officers' in-charge against the complainant,
the said act of accused No.2 does not amounts to defamation.
31. The testimony of PW.1 further indicating that after
the first accused took over the charge the second accused has
been constantly urging her to adopt a positive body language
to please the officer-in-charge. The accused No.2 has
reiterated the disparaging remarks on her by way of her
deposition before the enquiry committee on 25.1.2011. Their
observation was that she had serious behavioral problems and
that she is suffering from inferiority complex. The enquiry
committee was constituted to probe into her complaint lodged
before higher authorities. It appears P.W.1 has not explained
21 C.C.No.25137/2012
the alleged disparaging statement made by accused No.2
against her. In my opinion, in the absence of explaining the
alleged disparaging remarks of accused No.2, the say of PW.1
that the accused No.2 has made disparaging statement
against complainant with an intention to harm her reputation
cannot be believed. Assuming that accused No.2 has made
statement that the complainant had serious behavioral
problem and is suffering from inferiority complex, that by itself
does not amounts to defamation if at all the said say of
accused No.2 leads to disciplinary action by the higher
authority. Moreover, the complainant has not explained before
whom the accused No.1 has made such statement against her
and not examined any such person.
32. The testimony of P.W.1 further indicating that the
third accused has been making disparage remarks against her
parentage to other colleagues in the office like
Smt.B.Gomathiamma a senior colleague of her. Once A3 has
made request to Dr.K.Sathyanarayana the former officer in-
charge in front of her in a sarcastic manner that she was free
to marry anybody since her parents belonged to different
religion. But, her parents belonged to same religion and hail
from highly reputable family. The tone in language of accused
No.3 was to ridicule her parentage as if she is a pedigree in a
disreputable wedlock. A3 has been making such remarks to
bring disrespect to her before others in the office. It appears
PW.1 has not explained the intention of accused No.3 to make
such remarks on her. Moreover, she has not examined said
B.Gomathiamma or any other officer in charge or others staff
22 C.C.No.25137/2012
of office, before whom, the accused No.3 has made such
remarks against her parentage. Moreover, no explanation is
offered for non examination of any witnesses before the court.
Even assuming that accused No.3 has made such remarks
with an intention to disrespect the complainant before others
in the office, at least some body in the office would have come
forward to corroborate the testimony of P.W.1. Though P.W.1
has examined her colleague Dr. Roopa Bose as P.W.2, but she
has not whispered anything regarding the above assertion of
P.W.1. As such a doubt arises to believe the testimony of
P.W.1.
33. The testimony of P.W.1 further indicating that on
4.2.2011 the accused No.3 called her a totally psychic lady in
front of first accused inside the cabin when she was present.
The imputation made by all the accused persons on her is
intended and with the knowledge that it would defame her. It
appears the evidence of P.W.1 is not clear as to why accused
No.3 has made such remarks on her. In my opinion, in the
absence of intention on the part of accused No.3, it cannot be
said that whatever the alleged remarks even if made by
accused No.1 amounts to defamation.
34. Upon careful perusal of the evidence on record it is
seen that though accused Nos.1 to 3 and complainant together
worked in prestigious institution, there was misunderstanding
among them in some issues and there was no congenial
atmosphere in the work place. I feel that there is serious ego
problem among them in discharging their duties in one way or
23 C.C.No.25137/2012
the other that is the reason why the complainant has given
several representations to her higher authorities against
accused Nos.1 to 3 and also against her other colleagues by
name Bincy Cyriac, SO-F and Smt. Nishma Ojha, SO-D for
necessary action. We can understand some grievance by
complainant against her some colleagues but not against all
the officers either equal grade or higher grade relating to
discharging the duties.
35. It is an admitted fact that based on the said
representations two fact finding committees were constituted
by the employer of both to probe the allegation in the said
representations. The first committee gave its finding that the
charges are trivial in nature and did not find any evidence of
harassment and torture at work place by the in-charge, and
officers of Chemistry Laboratory. Further the said committee
in its observation has felt that there are some
misunderstandings among the officers of Chemistry
Laboratory which is creating rift and aggravated day by day.
Finally the committee is of the opinion that "a congenial
atmosphere need to be created at the work place in the
interest of the organization, for which, in-charge chemistry
Laboratory should be proactive". Further it is of the opinion
that all the officers of Chemistry Laboratory should resolve
their internal differences among themselves amicably and also
directed to respects the feelings of others.
36. Ex.P15 is another report of the committee. The
second committee has considered the complaint of
24 C.C.No.25137/2012
complainant against accused persons and two others in detail
by recording evidence and has come to the conclusion as:
" Ms.Dhilshathu the complainant herein is a sincere
and devoted officer. But, she lacks adjustment due
to which she has become bad to most of the senior
colleagues in the laboratory. She is very rigid about
her views and opinions, which is evident from her
umpteen complaints and causing of legal notices to
her colleagues. She has no concern about the
feelings of others in the office". Further the said
committee has observed that there is groupism in
the Chemistry Laboratory of Southern Region, AMD,
Bangalore which need to be weakened/curbed on
priority. Because of Ms.Dhilshathu ventured to fight
against senior colleagues as well as in-charge,
through her letters, there is unity among the
affected who may be still causing mental agony to
Ms.Dilshathu by isolating her and passing
unhealthy remarks, by excessively laughing etc.
There is no congenial atmosphere in the laboratory,
which has been badly affecting the work output and
mental peace among all the officers working in the
laboratory including the complainant. The in-charge
has not seriously thought of resolving the situation
when it was bud itself. Perhaps, now it is beyond
his control for the reasons attributable to him to
some extent. Had he tackled the issue in an
impartial and non prejudicial manner in the
25 C.C.No.25137/2012
beginning itself, it wold not have reached to the level
of constituting a Fact Finding Committee to unearth
the facts".
Accordingly, the said committee has made the following
recommendations.
i) Swift and strict action need to be taken to
eradicate groupism prevailing in the Chemistry
Laboratory; even transfer of officers may be resorted
to in order to bring healthy and good atmosphere in
the lab.
ii) Immediate action is necessitated to maintain
congenial atmosphere in the lab.
iii) Including in-charge, all the five senior personnel
working in the lab besides the complainant should
understand consequences/repercussions of their
unruly/indifferent behaviour. All the officers should
be advised strongly in writing in this regard. Steps
to be taken to enhance the work output in the
Chemistry Laboratory. Groupism is a result of
incapacity of in-charge, suitable administrative
action may be taken against him also to improve the
situation. The complainant may also be advised to
restrain from frequent wiring letters and legal
notices accusing the fellow officers, she is further
advised to learn to share the lab resources during
sample analysis. She should also learn to respect
the seniors and fellow colleagues and maintain
congenial atmosphere and office decorum in the
26 C.C.No.25137/2012
laboratory in particular. The complainant should
also be advised to resolve and sort out the problems
if any at appropriate level.
37. It appears the second committee has almost
reiterated the observation of earlier committee. If we look into
the evidence on records and documents produced before the
court it goes without saying that there is substance in the
observation of the committee. Anyhow this court is not sitting
on the report of the said committee however, it is necessary to
refer the observation and opinion of the said committee to
appreciate the case on hand. In my opinion, there is
misunderstanding, egoism, inferiority and superiority complex
among the officers working in the Chemistry Laboratory i.e.,
among the complainant, accused persons and other officers.
But the evidence on record is not sufficient to hold that the
accused persons with an intention to harm the reputation of
the complainant have made some imputations, which lowered
her dignity in the minds of her colleagues and other staff in
the said Chemistry Laboratory. No doubt there is no wrong in
relying upon the sole testimony of P.W.1 in order to believe the
same it is necessary to look into the circumstances of the
imputation alleged. In the instant case, the allegation of
imputations made against accused persons is inside the office.
Admittedly, numbers of officers and workers working in the
chemistry laboratory, but none have come forward to support
the version of complainant. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.1 is
silent about the intention on the part of accused persons in
making imputations which lowering her dignity in the minds
27 C.C.No.25137/2012
of others. As stated above, at the repetition of cost, the main
ingredients of defamation is intention on the part of accused
persons in making imputation to harm. But the evidence is
lacking on this aspect. Though the complainant to support
her contention has examined her colleague P.W.2 but she has
not supported her version.
38. It is needless to say that in order to constitute the
criminal conspiracy there must be meeting of mind. But in
the case on hand, the evidence on record is not sufficient to
hold that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 conspired together with an
intention to harm, isolate the complainant have made
disparaging statement against her which lowered her dignity
and respect in the minds of others. PW.2 has not supported
the version of complainant to hold that the accused persons
criminally conspired together and made disparaging
statements with an intention to harm the reputation of
complainant in the minds of her colleagues or staff in the
office.
39. The learned counsel for the complainant has placed
reliance in the case of sat Paul vs. Delhi Administration
reported in AIR 1976 SC 294. The ratio laid down in this
decision is to the effect that if the witness turned hostile, his
entire evidence cannot be discarded and court can rely upon
the evidence of hostile witness if it is in corroboration to the
fact in issue. This court is fully concurs with the ratio laid
down in the said decision. It appears the learned counsel for
complainant has placed reliance on above decision in view of
28 C.C.No.25137/2012
hostile evidence of PW.2. In the instant case no doubt the
entire evidence of PW.2 cannot be discarded merely because
she turned hostile, but her any part of evidence no way
supporting the case of the complainant.
40. The second decision relied upon by counsel for
complainant in the case of Gurusingh Vs. State of Rajasthan
reported in (2001)2 SCC 205 and also Siddasetty Vs. State of
Karnataka reported in ILR 1999 Kar 4428 are speaking
regarding above referred ratio, which did not require detailed
consideration.
41. The third decision in the case of Krishnamochi and
others Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2002)6 S.C.C 81 is
speaking regarding appreciation of evidence. In my opinion,
this court is fully concurs with the ratio laid down in the said
decision. No doubt it is true that it is the quality of evidence
but not quantity of evidence. Further it is true that the court
has to appreciate the unwillingness of witnesses to give
evidence before the court. In the instant case though as per
say of PW.1 the accused persons made disparaging remarks
against her in front of her colleagues but none have supported
her version. As stated above at the repetition of cost if really
the accused persons intentionally made such remarks at least
some few would have come forward to corroborate the
testimony of PW.1.
42. The ratio laid down in the last decision in the case of
Joshinder Yadav Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2014 SC
29 C.C.No.25137/2012
1043 is to the effect that the burden of proof on the
prosecution can be shifted on the accused when it is difficulty
to prove the facts which are within the knowledge of the
accused. In the present case on hand the burden of proof
cannot be shifted on to the accused persons merely because
no witnesses have come forward to support the version of
complainant. Moreover, the complainant has not explained as
to why none of her colleagues have come forward to support
her version. Therefore, with great respect ratio laid down in
above referred decisions is not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the case on hand.
43. Accordingly, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, the discussions made above, I am
of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to
prove guilt against accused Nos.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable
doubt. Therefore, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for
benefit of doubt. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences u/s 500 and 120(b) of IPC.
Hence, acting under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1 to 3 are hereby acquitted for the above referred offences.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and print out taken by her is verified and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of February 2015) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
30 C.C.No.25137/2012ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1, Dhilshathu Beegam P.W.2, Dr.Roopa Bose;
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 to Ex.P4, Postal acknowledgements, Ex.P5, Copy of complaint dated 20-1-2011, Ex.P6, Copy of complaint dated 6-1-2011, Ex.P7, Copy of complaint dated 5-2-2011, Ex.P8, Postal acknowledgement, Ex.P9, Copy of complaint dated 14-6-2011, Ex.P10 Postal acknowledgement, Ex.P11, Postal envelope with refused endorsement, Ex.P12, Copy of notice dated 27-6-2011, Ex.P13 Copy of notice dated 27-6-2011, Ex.P14, Letter issued by Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research with report of Committee and enclosures, Ex.P15, Letter dated 10-5-2013, Ex.P16, Postal acknowledgement, Ex.P17, Letter dated 23-8-2012, Ex.P18, Letter dated 29-12-2011, Ex.P19, Postal acknowledgement;
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION : NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS & MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE: NIL IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.31 C.C.No.25137/2012
Judgement pronounced in the open court vide separate sheet.
ORDER This court did not found guilt of accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences u/s 500 and 120(b) of IPC.
Hence, acting under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1 to 3 are hereby acquitted for the above referred offences. Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.