Vijayalaxmi Shetty vs Kochu Shetty. Criminal Appeal 1141/2010 decided on 11 November 2020. Justice H.P. Sandesh.
Judgement Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/348103/1/CRLA1141-10-11-11-2020.pdf
Relevant Paragraphs: 68. The principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment in the case of Subramanian Swamy (supra) in respect of reputation is concerned, is aptly applicable to the case on hand. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sukhwant Singh (supra) is clear that the reputation of a person is his valuable asset, and is a facet of his right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as held in the case of Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2008) 16 SCC 14. Making any allegation of unchastity against a woman amounts to bringing down the reputation of the womanhood, as held by the Madras High Court, Bombay High Court, Allahabad High Court and Calcutta High Court.
69 & 70. This Court would like to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Abdulla khan. The Apex Court in paragraph No.10 of the said judgment referring to provisions of Section 499 of IPC analyzed that to constitute an offence of defamation it requires a person to make some imputation concerning any other person. imputation must be made either with intention, knowledge, or having a reason to believe that such an imputation will harm the reputation of a person against whom the imputation is made. It is also observed that imputation could be by words, either spoken or written or by making signs or visible representation and imputation could be either made or published. It is also important to note that in the case on hand, though the same is not published in any paper, the accused made the imputation in the said letters addressing the same to the complainant and the Bank wherein the complainant was working. Hence, the very finding of the Appellate Court that there was no material before the Court for publication cannot be accepted.
It is clear that imputation could be either made or published and it is not necessary that there must be a publication and if anything is spoken or written or by making signs with intention, knowledge, having a reason to believe that such an imputation will harm the reputation of the person, that itself is enough to come to the conclusion that the same is made with an intention and knowledge to disrepute the reputation of a person. The Apex Court held that the essence of publication in the context of Section 499 of IPC is the communication of defamatory imputation to persons other than the persons against whom the imputation is made by referring the judgment in the cases of Khima Nand v. Emperor reported in 1936 SCC Online All 307 and Amar Singh v. K.S. Badalia reported in 1964 SCC Online Pat 186. Hence, it is clear that the Appellate Court has committed an error in reversing the finding of the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that there is no publication. The very approach of the Appellate Court is erroneous.
73. This Court has already referred the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Abdulla khan (supra) and particularly referred to paragraph No.10 and has observed that in order to invoke Section 499 of IPC, it is not necessary that it should be published, but if it is gone to the knowledge of any other person other than the complainant, that itself is enough to invoke Section 499 of IPC. Hence, the Appellate Court has committed an error in acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 499 of IPC. Hence, the judgment of the Trial Court has to be restored.
also see other paragraphs in the judgment.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 