Karnataka High Court
Miss Dhilshathu Beegam T vs Dr A Premadas on 10 January, 2020
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 630 OF 2015
BETWEEN
Miss. Dhilshathu Beegam T
D/o M. Thankappan,
Aged about 38 years,
Occupation: Scientific Officer-D,
Chemistry Laboratory,
Atomic Minerals Directorate
for Exploration and Research,
Dept. of Atomic Energy,
Northern Region, West Block-7,
R.K.Puram, New Delhi-110066.
R/at Valakompurayidom, Pettah,
Pathanamthitta P.O.,
Pathanamthitta District.
Kerala-689645.
... Appellant
(By Sri. Harsha G for Smt. Radha R, Adv. for appellant)
AND
1. Dr.A.Premadas,
Aged about 60 years,
Scientific Officer-G,
Chemistry Laboratory,
Atomic Minerals Directorate
for Exploration and Research,
Dept. of Atomic Energy, 1-10-153/156,
AMD Complex, Begumpet,
Hyderabad-500016.
:2:
2. Dr. Anitha Mary Thomas,
Aged about 49 years,
Scientific Officer-F,
Chemistry Laboratory,
Atomic Minerals Directorate
for Exploration and Research,
Dept. of Atomic Energy
1-10-153/156,
AMD Complex, Begumpet,
Hyderabad-500016.
3. Dr.Usha Nathan,
Aged about 55 years,
Scientific Officer-F,
Chemistry Laboratory,
Atomic Minerals Directorate
for Exploration and Research,
Dept. of Atomic Energy,
Southern Region, AMD Complex,
Nagarabhavi, Bangalore-560072.
... Respondents
(By Sri. P.Usman, Advocate)
This criminal appeal filed u/s 378(4) of Cr.P.C praying to
set aside the judgment and order dated 28.02.2015 passed by
the IX ACMM, Bangalore in C.C.No.25137/2012 acquitting the
respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Sections
499 and 120(B) of IPC.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission, this day,
the Court made the following:
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for admission with the consent of learned counsels for both the sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
:3:
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 28.02.2015 passed in C.C.No.25137/2012 by the IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru acquitting the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 500 and 120(B) of IPC. Hence, the present appeal is filed challenging the impugned judgment by urging various grounds.
3. The factual matrix of the appeal are as under:
That the appellant/complainant is a Scientific Officer-D in Atomic Mineral Directorate for Exploration and Research, Department of Atomic Energy, Nagarbhavi, Bangalore (for short, 'Chemistry Lab'). Respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3 said to be her senior colleagues of the same lab. 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 presently is working in Hyderabad Office. 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 :4: 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 Accused No.1 took charge as the OIC of Chemistry Laboratory of the Directorate's Southern Region at Bangalore. It is stated in the complaint and also materials available on records that Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in furtherance of their common objects 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. Further, on 04.02.2011, in front of accused No.1, accused No.3 called the appellant/complainant 'a totally psychiatric person. The imputation made by the accused No.3 about the appellant as mentioned above was intended to and with the knowledge that it would harm the reputation of the appellant which is an offence of defamation. Further, 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 :5: misunderstandings in Dr.Roopa's mind. In order to defame and tarnish the complainant, Accused No.1 made such a request to Dr.Roopa Bose. Further, the Accused No.2 has been nurturing spite against the complainant and she has been misusing her power as a Senior Officer and trying to mislead all the officers in-charge that she has certain serious behavioral problems. Therefore, respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed the offence punishable under sections 500 and 120-B of IPC.
4. In pursuance to the acts of the respondents/accused, a private complaint in PCR No.8866/2012 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. came to be registered for the offence punishable under sections 500 and 120(b) of IPC. The trial Court framed the charges against the respondents for the aforesaid offences and they did not plead guilty but claimed to be tried. Thereafter in order to prove the case, the appellant has been examined herself as P.W.1 and got examined one witness as P.W.2 and got marked 19 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.19. Subsequent to the closure of the evidence, the incriminating statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded where accused had denied the truth of the :6: complainant evidence adduced and they did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence. On hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution as well as the defence counsel and on evaluating the entire evidence on record, the court below acquitted Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 500 and 120-B of IPC. It is this judgment which is under challenge in this appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and learned counsel for the respondent/accused and perused the entire records.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of his arguments has taken me through the evidence of material witnesses i.e., P.W.1 and 2 that the prosecution had relied upon. He contends that the trial Court passed the judgment dated 28.02.2015 without appreciating the evidence on record in proper perspective and without proper analyzing of the position of law in respect of offences. The trial Court has completely erred to render justice to the appellant according to the merits, facts and probabilities of the case. The trial Court has not applied its mind justifiably while passing the impugned :7: judgment, by not at all considering all the documents produced on the side of the appellant. Thus, certain vital documents like Ex.P14, Ex.P.17 were completely ignored and certain aspects of Ex.P15 containing significant supportive evidence for the appellant's case were overlooked by the Learned Magistrate. The Court below has totally misread the entire evidence and has failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective. As such, an independent appreciation of the entire evidence is required by this Court in this appeal. The trial Court has grossly erred in appreciating the fact that the complaint before the Trial Court against these respondents/accused is on defamation and criminal Conspiracy. The imputation made by all the three respondents about the appellant after conspiring to figure her as a mentally imbalanced person, were intended to and with the knowledge that it would harm the reputation of this appellant and is an offence of defamation as well as criminal conspiracy. But the trial Court without appreciating these facts, wrongly assuming that the accused persons discriminated, tortured, harassed, undermined the professional competency of complainant in front of others and also denied her opportunities of participating in an important program that :8: by itself does not amounts to defamation which is totally erroneous and as such warrants the intervention of this Court. The trial Court erred in concluding such statements, even assuming to be made by the 2nd respondent, does not amount to defamation but only disciplinary action by the higher authority is sufficient. It is evident that the statements made by the 2nd respondent are defamatory in nature as the imputation is aimed at this appellant as a psychologically imbalanced person. Further those statements were not made orally, but in the form of written statement before the Committee and only for that reason is a clear case of publication, which does not come under any of the privileged categories under Section 499 of IPC. The conclusion arrived at by the trial Court contrary to the settled position of law is perverse warranting this Court's intervention. On all these grounds urged, the learned counsel for the appellant prays for re-visiting the impugned judgment of acquittal and also re-appreciating the entire evidence in a proper perspective and prays that the impugned judgment of acquittal held by the Trial Court in C.C.No.25137/2012 be set aside by allowing this appeal and convict the accused suitably. :9:
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance in the case of Sat Paul Vs. Delhi Administration reported in AIR 1976 SC 294 whereas 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. In the instant case no doubt the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be discarded merely because she turned hostile, but her any part of evidence no way supporting the case of the appellant.
8. The second decision relied upon by the appellant's counsel is 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 and in the case of Krishnamochi and other Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2002) 6 S.C.C. 81. These are all judgments are speaking regarding above referred ratio, which did not require detailed consideration.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent contended that the trial Court has rightly come to the : 10 : conclusion that the complainant has not established the case against the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 500 and 120-B of IPC. The complainant to prove her case, got examined herself as P.W.1 and also got examined one witness as P.W.2 and got marked 19 documents as Ex.P1 to P19, the trial Court has meticulously considered the oral and documentary evidence and rightly come to the conclusion by dismissing the case of the complainant. As such, the learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment of acquittal held by the Trial Court. He contends that the Trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record in a proper perspective and had succeeded in acquitting the accused/respondents. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the appeal preferred by the appellant as being devoid of merits.
10. Keeping in view the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is relevant to note that defamation is a common law of tort that involves an act of harming the reputation of another by making a false statement to third person. Whatever the contention taken by the complainant to initiate the proceedings against the accused is not sufficient to : 11 : proceed with this matter. The essential ingredients of the offences in respect of defamation and criminal conspiracy, are making or publishing any imputation concerning any person. 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 such imputation as lugged in the complaint by initiating proceedings against the accused persons. Whereas, the testimony of P.W.1 indicates that the complainant is the Seientific Officer of the Chemistry Lab at Bengaluru and the respondents 1 to 3 are said to be the senior colleagues of the complainant in the same unit. The respondents with intention to impute the reputation of the complainant, used to call her as psycho and hatched criminal conspiracy relating to harmful to the complainant. It is stated in her complaint that at the instance of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, respondent No.1 started discrimination in office work in front of others which caused mental stress to the appellant.
11. Further, on 04.02.2011, the 3rd respondent called her a totally psychic person in front of the first respondent : 12 : inside the cabin. The imputation made by all the accused persons on her is intended and with the knowledge that it would defame her. But there is no clear evidence adduced by the P.W.1 as to why the 3rd respondent has made such remarks on her. As such, in the absence of intention on the part of the 3rd respondent, it cannot be said that whatever the alleged remarks even if made by 1st respondent amounts to defamation and harmful to the reputation of the complainant. The evidence on record is not sufficient to hold that the respondents 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 Unit. It is an admitted fact that based on the representations, two departmental enquiry committees were constituted for probing the petitions of the appellant. 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 misunderstandings among the officers of said lab which is creating rift and aggravated circumstances. Finally, the : 13 : 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 said laboratory should resolve their internal differences among themselves amicably and also directed to respects the feelings of the others. The same has considered by the Court below and also observed in the impugned judgment.
12. No doubt there is no error in relying upon the sole testimony of P.W.1, to believe the same, it is necessary to look into the circumstances of the imputation alleged with the strong evidence. In the instant case, the allegation of imputations made against the respondents is inside the office. Admittedly, numbers of officers and workers working in the said unit, 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 the respondents/accused in making imputations which lowering her dignity. The main ingredients of defamation is intention on the part of accused persons in making imputation to harm. But the evidence is lacking on these : 14 : aspects. Though the complainant to support her contention has examined her colleague, P.W.2 but she has not supported her version. To constitute criminal conspiracy, there must be meeting of mind. But in this case, the evidence on record is not sufficient to hold that respondent 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. P.W.2 has not supported the version of complainant to hold that the respondents 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. As such, the appellant has failed to establish the case against the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 500 and 120(B) of IPC. However, the appellant even though has initiated proceedings against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 500 and 120(B) of IPC is required to establish the case by putting forth cogent, corroborative and acceptable evidence. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal does not call for any interference, as there is no infirmity found in a judgment rendered by the Court below. Whereas, the counsel : 15 : for the respondent produced the judgment in O.S.No.26475/2012 dated 31.10.2019 which filed by the appellant herein as plaintiff against the defendants be arraigned as accused herein for damages. But the said suit came to be dismissed. However, in a totality of the circumstances of the case, it is said the appellant/complainant failed to establish her case against the accused. Therefore, the Court below has rightly dismissed the complaint by assigning justifiable reasons.
[
13. For the reasons stated above, I am of the considered view that on appreciation of the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 so also the contents of Ex.P1 to P19, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the complainant who initiated proceedings against the respondents failed to establish the case against the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 500 and 120(B) of IPC. Consequently, dismissed the case of the complainant and held that the Court did not find guilt of accused Nos.1 to 3 for the aforesaid offence and acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 3 under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. : 16 :
In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed. The impugned judgment of acquittal dated 28.02.2015 passed by the IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No.25137/2012 is hereby confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE JS/-