Delhi District Court
State vs Rajbir Singh Etc on 19 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-02,
NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
PRESIDED BY: SH. VIPUL SANDWAR
State Vs. Rajbir & Ors.
FIR NO. :247/2004, U/s 500/504/509/34 IPC
PS : New Usmanpur
A. CIS No. of the Case : 37/2015
B. FIR No. : 247/2004
C. Date of Commission of Offence : 19.08.2004, 22.08.2004 and
23.08.2004
D. Date of institution : 06.01.2005
E. Name of the complainant : Sudesh Kumari D/o Ram
Swaroop, R/o A-30, Jagjeevan
Nagar, Kaithwara, New
Usmanpur, Delhi
F. Name of the Accused, his : (1) Rajbir Singh, (2) Sunder
Parentage & Addresses Lal and (3) Rakesh Kumar
(abated on 08.09.2022) all
S/o Samay Singh, all R/o 381,
Jagjeevan Nagar, Kaithwara,
Delhi
G. Offence complained of : U/s 500/504/509/34 IPC
H. Representation on behalf of : Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Ld. APP
State
I. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
J. Order reserved on : 27.02.2024
K. Date of Order : 19.04.2024
L. Final Order : Acquitted
FIR No.247/04 State vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.1 of 20
Judgment
1.Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is based on the written complaint of complainant Ms. Sudesh Kumari wherein she has stated that on 17.08.2004 at around 07:00 pm when she was with her clients Rihana and her son Sonu, accused Rakesh who was his neighbour came and asked him to accompany him upstairs as her tenant was misbehaving. She sent her mother with Rakesh, accused Rakesh came down murmuring and went out. Later Rakesh again came and stated that you have to accompany as your tenant is misbehaving. She accompanied Rakesh upstairs where her mother and tenants were present. In front of all the people present accused Rakesh in a loud voice told her mother that he had given money to her for her abortion and he had got his abortion done. He also stated that he has letters of her paramours and he will show the same by collecting people.
2. On 19.08.2004 at about 05:00 pm accused Rakesh while standing in front of his house and shouted that he will assemble people and make daughter of Ram Swaroop sit in front of them. When the complainant confronted Rakesh he shouted and stated that "vakilni ki chodi apne aap ko samajhti kya hai vakil ka pesha to randi pesha hai vakil to aadhi randi hoti hai ye to bag main condom le kar ghumti hai". At that time she was returning from the market with her sister-in-law.
On 22.08.2004, accused Rakesh, Sunder and Rajbir assembled the crowd and called the father and brother of the complainant and stated about showing the letters of her paramours. The father and brother of the complainant did not FIR No.247/04 State vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.2 of 20 attend that gethering. The complainant suffered a mental and social harassment and even thought of committing suicide.
On 23.08.2004 at about 08:00 am three accused passed innuendos and provoked her say something. In the afternoon when she was coming they dusted a bed sheet and in the night when she was going to her sisters they cuffed on seeing her. The action of the accused persons have given a negative feeling to the complainant. Three accused was standing at the door of the complainant and accused Rajbir stated that she should commit suicide. As per the complainant the accused persons have troubled her and provoked her breach peace and commit suicide. The accused persons were charge-sheeted for offence punishable under section 500/504/509/34 IPC.
3. FIR was registered and has been investigated by the officials of Police Station New Usmanpur and IO/SI T. R. Meena filed the charge sheet against the accused persons.
4. Accused persons appeared before the Court and copy of chargesheet along with other documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were supplied to them.
5. Charge was framed vide order dated 18.04.2007 for the offence punishable Under Section 500/504/34 of the IPC against all the accused and under section 509 IPC against accused Rakesh Kumar by the learned Predecessor of this Court, to which, the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Thereafter, matter was listed for Prosecution Evidence. The Prosecution has examined 06 witnesses in support of its FIR No.247/04 State vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.3 of 20 case. In nutshell, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is as follows :-
(i) PW1 Sudesh Kumari is the complainant in the present matter. As per her deposition on 17.08.2004 at about 07:00 pm she was attending her clients Rihana and Sonu who had come from Babatpur to her room. At that time accused Rakesh forcibly opened the main gate of her house and entered without permission and came to her room and asked her to come with him at the upper portion of the aforesaid house stating that her tenants were misbehaving with him. As she was busy with her clients, she requested her mother to go with Rakesh and she went. After 30-35 seconds accused Rakesh came down from the upper portion of the house and went outside. Again after 1-2 minutes Rakesh entered in her house and caught hold of her hand and asked her to accompany him to the upper portion of the house. She alongwith accused Rakesh went to the aforesaid upper portion of the house at that time her tenants Maan Singh, his wife, Madhukar, Devuttam and other brothers of Devuttam and Madhukar were present. Her nephew Vishal and mother Smt. Harbiri Devi and neighbourers of the adjoining houses were als present. She came to know that none of her tenants had misbehaved with accused Rakesh. She asked Rakesh as to why he called her. Rakesh shouted that he got her abortion done and has safely kept the letters of her paramours. On 19.08.2004 at about 05:00 pm when she was coming back from market alongwith sister-in-law and mother, accused Rakesh told her that he would assemble a crowd and make daughter of Ram Swaroop to sit between them. When she confronted with accused he stated that "vakilni ki chodi apne aap ko samajhti kya hai vakil ka FIR No.247/04 State vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.4 of 20 pesha to randi pesha hai vakil to aadhi randi hoti hai ye to bag main condom le kar ghumti hai" . On 22.08.2004 accused Rakesh assembled the public from panchayat and called her father, brother and her mother. Only her father went to the Panchito and accused Rakesh insulted her father. On 23.08.2004 accused Rakesh alongwith Rajbir and Sunder Lal were standing in the gali and when she came outside accused Sunder shouted to her "phulan devi dekhi hai kisi ne" and pointed towards her. On the same day in the afternoon when she was returning back she saw Sunder in front of his house with a bed sheet who sprinkle all the dust of the bed sheet on her and also hit her on the back with the bed sheet. On the same day when she was going to her sister's house all three were standing and accused Rajbir stated that "aatamhatya kar leni chahiye bechari ko". On 24.08.2004 she went to DCP office and wrote a complaint and gave a complaint to PS Usmanpur. The accused persons have regularly filed false complaint against her to pressurize her to compromise the matter.
They have also published articles in newspaper and have filed in civil case in Tis Hazari Courts. In his cross-examination by Ld. counsel for accused persons she has conceded that accused persons are her cousin brothers and the plot in which the accused persons are residing is a common plot of 200 sq. yards which was purchased in the year 1964 as stated by her father. She conceded that she had not made any telephonic call at 100 number to the police on 17.08.2004, 19.08.2004 as the accused persons were her close relatives. The relationship with the accused persons became strained since 22.06.2004. On 17.08.2004 when Rakesh uttered some defamatory words to her the neighbourers surrounding their house were watching towards them, however, FIR No.247/04 State vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.5 of 20 she cannot tell their names. She could not state the people present in the gali on 19.08.2004 at 05:00 pm except accused. She stated that she had filed two cases including the present case against the accused persons and her mother filed one complaint case and one civil case against the accused persons. She denied the suggestion that she wanted to grab the property of the accused persons illegally and cooked up a false story in connivance with her mother and police officials.
(ii) PW2 Smt. Harviri Devi is the mother of the complainant. She has deposed that on 17.08.2004 at about 07:00 pm Rakesh entered in her house and asked her daughter Sudesh that there tenants were doing bad conduct and asked her to check them. Her daughter was with her clients Rihana and Sonu at that time. Her daughter requested her to see the matter. When she tried to go upstairs Rakesh returned back in between caught hold of the hand of her daughter and took her forcibly upstairs and started abusing her daughter badly. Accused Rakesh told her that he had got her daughter Sudesh aborted and provided money for the same. He used filthy and obscene language. He said that he had letters of the paramours of her daughter and he would make that public. He raised finger on the character of her daughter and called her names. He also stated that profession of an advocate is a profession of prostitution and her daughter used to carry condom in her bag. All the neighbourers were also present at that time and heard the same. Thereafter, they returned to their floor. On 19.08.2004 she was returning with her daughter in law and her daughter and when she reached in the gali of her house at about 05:00 pm accused Rakesh stopped their way and shouted that he would shows the letters of her daughter in the panchayat FIR No.247/04 State vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.6 of 20 and would defame her in the society. Accused Rajbir Singh and Sunder Lal were also present at that time. They also said that her daughter was bad character and should commit suicide. Several persons heard the same as the incident took place in the gali. She also stated that all the accused persons are here relatives and reside in the adjacent house and are jealous of her daughter. In her cross-examination Ld. counsel for the accused she has stated that her husband and father of the accused persons were cousin brothers. She also conceded that her daughter Sudesh is the cousin sister of accused persons. Accused Rakesh himself opened the daughter of our house on 17.08.2004. Nobody stopped him for entering our house. She conceded that there is no mention in her statement under section 161 Cr. PC recorded on 27.08.2004 that accused took her daughter Sudesh to the roof forcibly and abused her in front of the neighbourers. She denied the suggestion that incident dated 17.08.2004 and 19.08.2004 had never happened.
(iii) PW3 ASI Sandeep on 29.08.2004 he alongwith IO Tej Ram Meena went to the spot and apprehended the accused persons. IO personally arrested and searched all the three accused persons. The accused persons were released on bail on personal bonds. He identified the accused persons in the Court. The witness was not cross examined by the accused persons despite being given an opportunity.
(iv) PW4 ASI Laique Ahmed on 27.08.2004 he was Duty Officer and received rukka by SI T. R. Meena at about 05:15 pm. He got the FIR registered on the basis of the rukka. The witness was not cross examined by the accused persons despite being given an opportunity.
FIR No.247/04 State vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.7 of 20
(v) PW5 SI T. R. Meena is the IO in the present case. On 24.08.2004 the complaint of the complainant was marked to him for investigation by SHO concerned. He endorsed the complaint and prepared rukka. He went to meet the complainant at her house and inquired regarding her complaint. He recorded statements of complainant and witnesses under section 161 Cr. PC. On 29.08.2004 he arrested all the three accused persons at their houses and conducted their personal search. He formally interrogated the accused persons and released the accused persons on bail. On completion of the investigation he filed the chargesheet before the Court. The witness was not cross examined by the accused persons despite being given an opportunity.
(vi) PW6 Vishal is the nephew of complainant. He could not remember the exact date, month of the incident, however, he stated that the accused persons had misbehaved and spoken ill words against her paternal aunt. In the same year, a panchayat was formed in which all the accused persons, alongwith her grand father and himself were present. in the panchayat the accused persons continued to misbehaved against the complainant by speaking ill words due to which his grand father left the panchayat and was asked to be called again the panchayat by accused Rakesh. He stated that all the accused are distantly related to him as there paternal uncle/ chacha. Since the witness did not disclose the complete facts, Ld. APP for the State put questions in the nature of cross examination after seeking permission of the Court. He conceded that at the time of incident he was studying in Class 6th. He conceded that accused persons had commented against the complainant by saying that her FIR No.247/04 State vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.8 of 20 abortion was carried out by them and that perhaps she used to roam around taking condom on their bag. All the accused persons also commented on the complainant by stating "hum logo ko ikatha kar ke tumhare yaaro ke letter dikha denge" and had abused her. In his cross examination by Ld. counsel for accused he has stated that at the time of incident he was 9-10 years and he does not remember much. He also conceded that no bickering had happened at that time. He stated that he does not know between whom the talks were taking place at the time of incident. He conceded that no scuffle had taken place by accused Rajbir and Sunder Lal at the time of incident in his presence. He also conceded that he does not remember the specify dialogue at the time of incident exchanged by the persons involved. He denied the suggestion that he does not know anything and has deposed falsely at the instance of her paternal aunt.
7. PE was closed on 18.05.2023 and on 29.08.2023 statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. read with 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused persons did not wish to lead DE and matter was fixed for Final Arguments.
8. Final arguments were advanced on behalf of accused. Heard. Case record perused meticulously.
9. This Court has thoughtfully considered the material on record and arguments advanced with due circumspection.
10. In the present case the accused Rakesh Kumar has been charged with offence punishable under section 509 IPC and FIR No.247/04 State vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.9 of 20 accused Rajbir and Sunder Lal alongwith accused Rakesh have been charged with offence punishable under section 500/504/34 IPC. During trial proceedings against accused Rakesh abated on on 08.09.2022. Therefore, this judgment is limited to the examination of offences under section 500/504/34 IPC committed by accused Rajbir and Sunder Lal only.
11. Section 504 IPC is extracted for easy reference:
"504.Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.--Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
12. In Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra , (2013) 14 SCC 44, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that :
"13. Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients viz. (a) intentional insult, (b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and (c) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 IPC"
FIR No.247/04 State vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.10 of 20
13. In the present case it is the case of the prosecution that accused Rajbir and Sunder Lal have committed the offence as punishable under section 504 IPC by intentionally insulting complainant Sudesh Kumari and gave her provocation with intention or knowledge that such provocation will cause the complainant to break public peace or commit any offence.
14. As per the deposition of complainant/PW1 on 23.08.2004 accused Rakesh (deceased) alongwith Rajbir and Sunder were standing in the gali in morning hours and when she came outside her house accused Sunder stated "fulan devi dekhi hai kisi ne, yeh ja rahi hai" pointing towards her. Further she has stated that on the same day in the afternoon when she was returning back to her house she saw accused Sunder standing in front of his house with her bedsheet who sprinkled the dust of the bedsheet on her and also hit her on the back side with the bedsheet. On the same day in the evening when she was going to her sister's house all the accused persons were standing in the gali and accused Rajbir stated to her "aatam hatya kar leni chahiye bechari ko". Nothing regarding the incident of 23.08.2004 has been stated by PW2 mother of PW1. Perusal of the original complaint Ex. PW1/A of the complainant shows that on 23.08.2004 the three accused at about 08:00 am laughed at the complainant and provoked her to say something and in the afternoon they dusted the bedsheet and in the evening when she was going to her sister they coughed purposively. No mention of any name of the accused or their specific action / comment is mentioned in the original complaint. The complainant has improved upon on her statement while deposing before this Court.
FIR No.247/04 State vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.11 of 20
15. Be that as it may, it is imperative for proving the offence punishable under section 504 IPC that there has to be an intentional insult such as to give provocation to the person insulted to cause another to break public peace or commit any offence. In the present case even if the sole testimony of PW1, there does not seem any insult so as to provoke the complainant/PW1. The reliability of the deposition of PW1 suffers as there has been subsequent improvements in her deposition before the Court. As discussed above the mere facts that the accused abused the complainant would not per se warrant a conviction under section 504 IPC. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to charge under section 504 IPC.
16. The prosecution has also charged the accused Rajbir and Sunder Lal with offence punishable under section 500 IPC. Section 499 IPC provides for defamation and Section 500 IPC for punishment in respect of the said offence. The said provisions read as follows :
"499. Defamation.--Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.
Explanation 1.--It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2.--It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.
FIR No.247/04 State vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.12 of 20 Explanation 3.--An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4.--No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful. First Exception.--Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published.
--It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.
Second Exception.--Public conduct of public servants.--It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Third Exception.--Conduct of any person touching any public question.--It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Fourth Exception.--Publication of reports of proceedings of courts.--It is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings.
Explanation.--A Justice of the Peace or other officer holding an enquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court of Justice, is a Court within the meaning of the above section. Fifth Exception.--Merits of case decided in court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned.--It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character FIR No.247/04 State vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.13 of 20 of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Sixth Exception.--Merits of public performance.--It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no further.
Explanation.--A performance may be submitted to the judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the part of the author which imply such submission to the judgment of the public.
Seventh Exception.--Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another.--It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates.
Eighth Exception.--Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person.--It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.
Ninth Exception.--Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests.--It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good. Tenth Exception.--Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good.--It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good"
17. The offence of defamation has been punishable under section 500 IPC which reads as follows:
"500.Punishment for defamation.--Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple FIR No.247/04 State vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.14 of 20 imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both"
18. Section 199 Cr. PC provides for prosecution for defamation. It is apposite to reproduce the said provision in entirety. It is as follows :
"199.Prosecution for defamation.--(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Penal Code, 1860 except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence :
Provided that where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic, or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local customs and manners, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave of the court, make a complaint on his or her behalf.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, when any offence falling under Chapter XXI of the Penal Code, 1860 is alleged to have been committed against a person who, at the time of such commission, is the President of India, the Vice-President of India, the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union Territory or a Minister of the Union or of a State or of a Union Territory, or any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions a Court of Session may take cognizance of such offence, without the case being committed to it, upon a complaint in writing made by the Public Prosecutor.
(3) Every complaint referred to in sub-section (2) shall set forth the facts which constitute the offence alleged, the nature of such offence and such other particulars as are reasonably sufficient to give notice to the accused of the offence alleged to have been committed by him.
(4) No complaint under sub-section (2) shall be made by the Public Prosecutor except with the previous sanction--
(a) of the State Government, in the case of a person who is or has been the Governor of that State or a Minister of that Government;
FIR No.247/04 State vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.15 of 20
(b) of the State Government, in the case of any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the State;
(c) of the Central Government, in any other case. (5) No Court of Session shall take cognizance of an offence under sub-section (2) unless the complaint is made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed.
(6) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, to make a complaint in respect of that offence before a Magistrate having jurisdiction or the power of such Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence upon such complaint."
19. In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India , (2016) 7 SCC 221 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has defined the term defamation. It has observed that:
"A defamatory statement is one which has a tendency to injure the reputation of the person to whom it refers; which tends, that is to say, to lower him in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally and in particular to cause him to be regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike, or disesteem. The statement is judged by the standard of an ordinary, right thinking member of society...."
20. As defined above the offence of defamation is injury to one's reputation. In Om Prakash Chautala v. Kanwar Bhan (2014) 5 SCC 417 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that :
"1. ... Reputation is fundamentally a glorious amalgam and unification of virtues which makes a man feel proud of his ancestry and satisfies him to bequeath it as a part of inheritance on posterity. It is a nobility in itself for which a conscientious man would never barter it with all the tea of China or for that matter all the pearls of the sea. The said virtue has both horizontal and vertical qualities. When reputation is hurt, a man is half-dead. It is an honour which deserves to be equally preserved by the downtrodden and the privileged. The aroma FIR No.247/04 State vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.16 of 20 of reputation is an excellence which cannot be allowed to be sullied with the passage of time. It is dear to life and on some occasions it is dearer than life. And that is why it has become an inseparable facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. No one would like to have his reputation dented, and it is perceived as an honour rather than popularity."
21. In the present case it is the case of the prosecution that on 22.08.2004 accused Sunder Lal and Rajbir Singh defamed the complainant Sudesh Kumari by saying that "hum logo ko ikatha kar ke tumhare yaaro ke letter dikha denge" in panchayat.
22. As per the deposition of PW1/complainant on 22.08.2004 the accused Rakesh (deceased) assembled public for panchayat. He called the complainant and her father, brother and mother to the panchayat. Only her father went to the panchayat. The accused insulted father of the complainant who had gone for the panchayat. No mention of accused Rajbir or Sunder Lal uttering any defamatory statement on 22.08.2024 has been stated. Nothing regarding any defamatory words uttered by accused Sunder Lal and Rajbir on 22.08.2004 have been stated in the deposition of PW2 mother of the complainant. PW6 who is the nephew of the complainant has not been able to state the date or the month of the incident, whoever, he has stated that a panchayat was called wherein all the accused persons alongwith father of the complainant and himself were present. The accused persons in the panchayat had misbehaved with the father of the complainant who had left the panchayat and he was asked to be called again in the panchayat by accused Rakesh. In his cross- examination he has stated that at that time he was studied in class 6th. As per the original complainant of complainant Ex. PW1/A FIR No.247/04 State vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.17 of 20 she has stated that on 22.08.2004 accused Rakesh (deceased), Sunder and Rajbir assembled some people and called her father and brother and stated that he would show letters of her paramours.
23. Certain contradictions are per se apparent in the deposition of PWs. The original complaint Ex. PW1/A nowhere mentions about the panchayat being called. Also it is generally stated that all the three accused referred regarding showing her letters to the public. PW1 while deposing before the Court had stated that it was accused Rakesh who had assembled people for panchayat where her father had gone and accused Rakesh had insulted him. There is no mention of accused Rajbir or Sunder Lal regarding any incident on 22.08.2004. PW2 has not stated anything regarding the incident of 22.08.2004. PW6 has stated that all the accused persons were present in the panchayat contradictory to the version of PW1/complainant. No specific mention of words used have been stated by PW6.
24. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion it cannot be said that accused Sunder and Rajbir have uttered defamatory content against complainant Sudesh Kumari on 22.08.2004. Hence, the offence punishable under section 500 IPC cannot be said to be proved by the prosecution.
25. In a criminal trial, the burden on the prosecution is beyond reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt is a rule of caution laid down by the Courts of Law in respect of assessing the evidence in criminal cases. In Awadhi Yadav v. State of Bihar , (1971) FIR No.247/04 State vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.18 of 20 3 SCC 116 at page 117, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"Before a person can be convicted on the strength of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances in question must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must bring home the offence to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If those circumstances or some of them can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis. But in assessing the evidence imaginary possibilities have no place. What is to be considered are ordinary human probabilities."
26. Francis Wharton, a celebrated writer on criminal law in the United States has quoted from judicial pronouncements in his book Wharton's Criminal Evidence (at p. 31, Vol. 1 of the 12th Edn.) as follows:
"It is difficult to define the phrase 'reasonable doubt'. However, in all criminal cases a careful explanation of the term ought to be given. A definition often quoted or followed is that given by Chief Justice Shaw in the Webster case. He says:
'It is not mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs and depending upon moral evidence is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that consideration that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge."
27. In the treatise The Law of Criminal Evidence authored by H.C. Underhill it is stated (at p. 34, Vol. 1 of the 5th Edn.) thus:
"The doubt to be reasonable must be such a one as an honest, sensible and fair-minded man might, with reason, entertain consistent with a conscientious desire to ascertain the truth. An honestly entertained doubt of guilt is a reasonable doubt. A vague conjecture or an inference of the FIR No.247/04 State vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.19 of 20 possibility of the innocence of the accused is not a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is one which arises from a consideration of all the evidence in a fair and reasonable way. There must be a candid consideration of all the evidence and if, after this candid consideration is had by the jurors, there remains in the minds a conviction of the guilt of the accused, then there is no room for a reasonable doubt."
28. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution, is not sufficient to link the accused persons to the commission of the crime. As discussed above, mere abusive words uttered by the accused per se would not constitute the offence punishable under section 504 IPC. Also for proving the offence of defamation firstly, it has to be proved that the content per se defamatory and secondly, due to the said defamatory content the reputation of the complainant/victim has suffered in the eyes of right thinking people of the society. In the present case the prosecution has not been able to establish the defamatory content uttered by accused Rajbir and Sunder Lal on 22.08.2004. The offence of defamation punishable under section 500 IPC cannot be said to be proved. Therefore, accused Rajbir and Sunder Lal are found not guilty in the present case and resultantly, they stand acquitted in the present case.
29. Accused persons are directed furnish bail bond and surety bond in the sum of ₹10,000/- each u/s 437A Cr.P.C and directed to be present before the Ld. Appellate Court as and when directed. Digitally signed by VIPUL VIPUL SANDWAR SANDWAR Date: 2024.04.19 15:52:10 +0530 Announced in the open (VIPUL SANDWAR) Court on 19 th April, 2024 MM-02/NE/KKD COURTS FIR No.247/04 State vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.20 of 20