Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
lhf;lu; K/ts;Std;) inserting his picture in between the two lines, distributed the same, which contained the above innuendo defaming his character and reputation, besides other defamatory statements. Upon complaint, the Learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statements of one Sivamoorthy on 13/02/2004, and Dr.N.Valluvan, the complainant on 13/02/2004 and one Balamurugan on 16/02/2004 and thereafter took cognizance of the offences under Sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons to the accused. Upon appearance and being furnished with the copies as per Section 207 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied the charges and stood trial.
4. Upon being questioned about the adverse evidence and circumstances on record, as per Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. The Trial Court proceeded to hear the Learned Counsel on either side and by Judgment, dated 24/09/2010, found that from the evidence of PW-1 to PW-6, the heading of the handbill itself was an innuendo hurled with a malafide intent of bringing down the reputation of the complainant and rejected the defence contention that the complainant has not proved that it is only the accused who had printed and distributed Ex.P-2 handbill by reading of Ex.P-4 reply notice caused by them holding that the same amounted to tacit admission of their printing and distributing the Ex.P-2 offensive handbill. Therefore, the Trial Court convicted the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.971 and 938 of 2014 accused for the offenses punishable under Sections 500 & 501 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced as aforesaid.
24. I am unable to accept the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/accused that the caption as such does not relate to harming the character or reputation. It is an innuendo suggesting a disparaging remark about the character of the respondent/complainant. In this regard, Explanation 3 to Section 499 reads as follows:-
“Explanation 3.—An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.”
5. The reference need not be explicit. If the description is such that a reasonable person in the context in which it is made, will understand it as a reference to a particular person, it would suffice. It is not always that a libellous statement is made with directness, nor, does it mean that as long as it is not by specific reference, so long it is not libel. A degree of indirectness or innuendo is noticed in such attempts, and is to be expected. To defame is an offence, and it is reasonable to think that he who defames is not anxious to invite legal consequences. Satire or lampoons are instances of reference by innuendo.