Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that the imputation was not publicized or published by the accused, as she had merely made a complaint to the police station. However, there is no merit in the said argument as considering the settled law as stated above, once the imputation is made to a person other than the person against whom imputation is made, it amounts to publication. 'Publication' for the purpose of offence of defamation u/s 499 IPC should not be narrowly construed. In my considered opinion, 'Publication' for the purpose of S. 499 IPC will include the imputation as made by the accused in the present case in the nature of her complaint at PS, as well as her statement u/s 164 CrPC and her deposition in Court. Ld. Counsel for accused relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Smt. Sneh Lata vs. Sunita (supra). However, the said judgment does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the said judgment, neither the complainant was sent to judicial custody on account of false complaint nor there was admission by the accused regarding falsity of her complaint. Hence, the said judgment cannot be applied to the facts of the present case.

Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 Thus, first ingredient of the offence that the accused published an imputation concerning the complainant orally as well as in writing, stands proved.

24. Second ingredient to be proved for the offence of defamation u/s 499 IPC is that the imputation concerning the complainant must be made by accused with intention to harm or having knowledge or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of complainant. The said ingredient is required to be read together with Explanation 4 to Section 499 IPC, which requires that no imputation is said to harm a person's reputation unless the imputation, directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the character or credit of that person or causes it to be believed that the person is in a loathsome or disgraceful state. Therefore, the onus on the complainant is to prove that (i) the accused had an intention/ knowledge/ reason to believe to cause harm to the reputation of the complainant; and (ii) the imputation made by the accused actually caused harm to the reputation of the complainant.

39. The last thing to be examined is that whether or not the case of accused falls in any of the exceptions carved out in S. 499 IPC. First exception to S. 499 IPC provides that it is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for public good that imputation should be made or published. However, as the imputation in the present case has been proved to be false or untrue, first exception is not applicable. Eighth exception to S. 499 IPC provides that 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 to S. 499 IPC provides that it is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another if the imputation is made in good faith for the protection of interest of the person making it. However, again in the present case it cannot be said that the accusation was made by accused against the complainant in good faith. If at all the accusation had been made in good faith, the accused would not have chosen to resile from her statements or depositions which contained the accusations. Hence, eighth & ninth exceptions are also not applicable to the facts of the present case.

40. In view of the above discussion, it is concluded that the complainant has been successful in establishing his case beyond Dr. Monish Raut vs. Ms. Jayshree PS Dwarka Sector-23 reasonable doubt and all the ingredients of offence u/s 499 IPC have been proved against the accused. The complaint of the complainant is allowed, and the accused Ms. Jayshree is hereby convicted of the offence under Section 499 r/w 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1872.

Let the convict be heard separately on quantum of sentence and compensation.