Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(e) Dr. Subramanian Swami v. Tajender Pal Singh Bagga (W.P (CRL.) 735/2022 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 04.04.2022).

Ld. Counsel for Accused no. 1 and 2 also brought forward their final arguments on Court record by filing a written synopsis of the arguments.

Ld. Counsel for Accused no. 3 adopted the arguments addressed by Ld. Senior counsel for Accused no. 1 and 2 stating that the points, which he wanted to cover in support Surender Kumar Sharma v. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors. page no. 47 of 81 CNR No. DLCT12000332019 of the stand of the Accused no. 3, have already been addressed by the Ld. Senior Counsel for the Accused no. 1 and 2 and for the sake of brevity and saving time of the Court, he did not want to repeat the same. However, he added that there were contradictions in the cross-examination of the Complainant's witnesses and also the documents filed by the Complainant, which also weaken the case of the Complainant beyond repairs and bring the Accused persons in the realm of innocence. Taking support from the arguments of Ld. Senior Counsel for Accused no. 1 and 2, he stated that neither the alleged defamatory publication was made at the behest of Accused no. 3 nor has Accused no. 3 individually given any such statement, which can be termed as defamatory against the Complainant and therefore, he deserves to be set free from the charges leveled against him by being declared innocent and not guilty. Hence, he pressed upon acquittal of Accused no. 3. Written arguments were also filed on behalf of Accused no.3.

Undoubtedly, right to reputation of a person is akin to his right to live with dignity. Perhaps, the importance attached to this right can adjudged from the fact that in Indian law, an attack of reputation of a person, is not just a civil wrong covered under the law of torts but a criminal wrong punishable not only with fine but imprisonment as well under section 499/500 IPC. 6.4. Though there have been various debates on the issue as to whether defamation should continue to be an offence or not and as to whether it should be made only a civil wrong, the issue has now been settled vide the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Subramanian Swamy vs Union Of India [(2016) 7 SCC 221] wherein, upholding the Constitutional validity of Section-499/500 IPC, it was held that:

The Subramanian Swamy judgement (supra) also dwelled on the ingredients which constitute the offence of defamation and held that:

165. For the aforesaid purpose, it is imperative to analyse in detail what constitutes the offence of "defamation" as provided under Section 499 of IPC. To constitute the offence, there has to be imputation and it must have made in the manner as provided in the provision with the intention of causing harm or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the person about whom it is made. Causing harm to the reputation of a person is the basis on which the offence is founded and mens rea is a condition precedent to constitute the said offence. The complainant has to show that the accused had intended or known or had reason to believe that the imputation made by him would harm the reputation of the complainant. The criminal offence emphasizes on the intention or harm. Section 44 of IPC defines "injury". It denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, Surender Kumar Sharma v. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors. page no. 55 of 81 CNR No. DLCT12000332019 in body, mind, reputation or property. Thus, the word "injury" encapsulates harm caused to the reputation of any person. It also takes into account the harm caused to a person's body and mind. Section 499 provides for harm caused to the reputation of a person, that is, the complainant. In Jeffrey J. Diermeier and another v. State of West Bengal and another 152, a two-Judge Bench deliberated on the aspect as to what constitutes defamation under Section 499 of IPC and in that context, it held that there must be an imputation and such imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or knowing or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person about whom it is made. In essence, the offence of defamation is the harm caused to the reputation of a person. It would be sufficient to show that the accused intended or knew or had reason to believe that the 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.