Complainant Must Show Before Whom Image Was Lowered: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Conviction Of Newspaper Editor In Defamation Case
The Karnataka High Court was considering a Revision Petition assailing a judgment dismissing the Appeal filed by the Petitioner and confirming the conviction and order of sentence passed by Trial Court.
The Karnataka High Court, while setting aside the conviction of Editor of Kannada Weekly Newspaper Veeranadu in a criminal defamation case, held that the onus lies on the complainant to show before whom the image was lowered.
The Court was considering a Revision Petition assailing a judgment dismissing the Appeal filed by the Petitioner and confirming the conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.
The bench of Justice Rajesh Rai held, "As could be gathered from the above provision to attract the offence of defamation there must be publication of imputation intending to harm reputation of the person who felt defamed. The person, involving whom such publication is made, must prove that in estimation of others his moral or intellectual character is lowered down as a result of such false imputation. Further, to prove the said aspect it is the duty cast on the complainant to lead all necessary evidence before whom his image is ill-effected and lowered."
Advocate Angad Kamath appeared as the Amicus Curiae while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Sachin B.S.
Facts of the Case
The accused in his complaint for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC alleged that he is a Christian by religion who dedicated his life for social cause. The accused, an Editor of Kannada Weekly Newspaper Veeranadu, in his newspaper published an editorial article to perpetuate animosity among members of different religions. When a complaint was filed against him, he published another editorial. It was submitted that in his second editorial, the accused made multiple imputations against the complainant and further alleged that by such publication in the newspaper, the accused tarnished his reputation and sullied his dignity in public, putting him under tremendous mental agony and torture.
The accused was eventually convicted for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC. The Appeal of the Accused was also rejected.
The Amicus Curiae primarily contended that, on the face of allegations stipulated in the private complaint and the deposition of the witnesses, the Complainant failed to make out that the alleged imputation caused harm to the complainant's reputation in the estimation of other, as required under explanation (4) to Section 499 of IPC, since the sole supporting witness categorically admitted in his evidence that the complainant informed him that the alleged imputation cause sullied his reputation. He further contended that, except the Witness, no evidence was led to substantiate that, either any member of public or community, upon reading the impugned editorials thought less of the complainant or altered their opinion of him.
Reasoning By Court
The Court, at the outset, noted that to attract the offence of defamation there must be publication of imputation intending to harm reputation of the person who felt defamed.
"In the case on hand, albeit the complainant-PW.1 in his private complaint and the evidence stated that, the imputations as per Exs.P1(a) to P1(d) sullied his reputation, however, that in itself would not suffice to attract the offence under Section 499 of IPC. The damage of the reputation can be ascertained and determined by other persons’ estimation. In the instant case, the complainant examined PW.2 to prove the said aspect; however, PW.2 nowhere in his evidence stated that on reading the imputation, the moral and intellectual character of the complainant has been lowered in his estimation. On the contrary he deposed that, the complainant himself informed him that "the imputation caused harm to his reputation." Further, he explicitly re-affirmed his belief on the complainant's good character. As stated supra no other witnesses have been examined in whose estimation the reputation of the complainant has been lowered owing to such imputation made by the accused. This aspect was not appreciated by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Against this backdrop, interference is required in the impugned judgments by this Court," the Court observed.
The Petition was accordingly allowed.
Cause Title: Addanda Kariappa vs. Philiphose Mathew (2025:KHC:15194)