IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 363 of 2001()
1. M.V.RAVEENDRAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DR.RAMAKRISHNAN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNNY VARGHESE
For Respondent :SRI.T.A.RAJAGOPALAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :06/11/2009
O R D E R
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No.363 OF 2001
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009
ORDER
Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.82/1993 of Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Pattambi and appellant in Crl.Appeal
No.53/1996 of Sessions Court, Palakkad. He was convicted under
Section 500 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for
three months and a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months. His conviction and sentence was
confirmed in appeal. The accused has now come up in revision
challenging his conviction and sentence.
2. The case was initiated on a private complaint filed by the
complainant against the accused alleging commission of offence
punishable under Section 500 of IPC. The case of complainant as
testified by him as PW1 before the trial court and as detailed in his
complaint in brief is this :
The complainant is a Doctor holding an MBBS decree and he is
running a hospital named Modern Hospital, Koottanad. The accused is
Crl.R.P.No.363/01 Page numbers
the President of ‘Rajiv Vichar Vedi’. The complainant is a retired
Military Captain . His wife is also a Doctor. The accused published
notice Ext.P4 which is per se defamatory to the complainant as a result
of which complainant has lost his deputation and it demeans his status
and position.
3. On receipt of the complaint, the trial court recorded the
sworn statement of the complainant and took cognizance of the
offence. The accused on appearance before the trial court pleaded not
guilty to a charge under Section 500 of IPC. PWs 1 to 4 were
examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked on the side of the
complainant. As a prima facie case was made out against the accused,
charge under Section 500 was framed to which the accused pleaded not
guilty. Thereafter witnesses were recalled and further cross examined
by the accused. When questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by the
trial court, the accused denied having committed any offence . No
defence evidence was adduced.
4. The trial court on an appreciation of evidence found that
the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 500 of
Crl.R.P.No.363/01 Page numbers
IPC and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him as aforesaid
which is confirmed in appeal. Now the accused has come up in
revision challenging his conviction and sentence.
5. The following points arise for consideration :
1) Whether the notice Ext.P4 was
published by the accused and if so whether it
defames and harm the reputation of the
complainant ?
2) Whether the conviction of the
revision petitioner under Section 500 of IPC can
be sustained ?
3) Whether the sentence imposed is
excessive or unduly harsh ?
6. The counsel for revision petitioner argued that Ext.P4
notice does not contain any defamatory statement and that therefore
revision petitioner has to be acquitted. There is no merit in the above
contention. The relevant portion of Ext.P4 notice was extracted by
the trial court as well as lower appellate court in their respective
Crl.R.P.No.363/01 Page numbers
judgments. I have also gone through Ext.P4 notice . I am in complete
agreement with the finding of the trial court as well as lower appellate
court that it contains defamatory remarks against PW1.
7. PW1 to PW4 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were
marked on the side of the complainant before trial court. PW1, the
complainant testified in terms of the complaint. He would say that
describing him as a ‘compounder’ in Ext.P4 has insulted him and also
harmed his reputation and lowered his character in public. His
evidence is supported by PWs 2 to PW4.
8. PW2 testified that he had seen the manuscript of the notice
in the press of accused and that he had also seen accused and two
others distributing the notice. It was not suggested during his cross
examination that he has any enmity towards the accused. Therefore,
the trial court as well as the lower appellate court is perfectly justified
in believing his evidence. His evidence shows that Ext.P4 notice was
printed and distributed by the accused.
9. PW3 is an auto rickshaw driver. He testified that while he
was in the library of Koottanad where several people gathered one
Crl.R.P.No.363/01 Page numbers
Sundaran an employee of the press of accused brought Ext.P4 notice
and reading the same he came to understand that it was about the
accused and that accused has a good reputation in that locality and that
describing accused as a compounder has lowered the reputation of
accused in public. PW4 is another independent witness who had seen
Ext.P4 notice in the press of accused. He would say that accused is the
President of Ragiv Vichar Vedi, that accused asked him to distribute
the notice which he refused. The evidence of PW2 to PW4 shows that
Ext.P4 notice was printed and published by the accused and on a
reading of Ext.P4 they were caused to form a lower opinion about
PW1.
10. Thus the evidence of PW2 to PW4 clearly shows that
describing PW1 as a compounder in Ext.P4 is per se defamatory and
has lowered the good reputation of PW1 as a doctor in the public as
enumerated under Explanation 4 of Section 499 of IPC. It is also
proved by the evidence of PW1 to PW4 and the admission made by
accused in reply notice Ext.P6 that it was the accused who printed and
published the notice Ext.P4. The accused has no case that the
Crl.R.P.No.363/01 Page numbers
allegation in Ext.P4 would come within any of the explanation to
Section 499 of Cr.P.C.
11. Counsel for revision petitioner arguing the revision
submitted that to constitute an offence of defamatory as prescribed
under Section 499 of IPC the complainant should prove that there was
an intention on the part of the accused to defame the complainant and
that in this case complainant has failed to prove the same. I am unable
to agree. Describing PW1 as a compounder and publishing Ext.P4
notice clearly show that the intention of accused was to defame him in
the eye of public. That apart, accused has doubted the education
qualification of PW1 and PW1 was compelled to produce Exts.P1 to
P3, his certificates. It is clear from the above that the intention of
accused was to lower the reputation of PW1 in public. Therefore, the
action of accused clearly comes within the verdict of Section 499 of
IPC.
12. For all these reasons, I am inclined to uphold the conviction
of revision petitioner/accused under Section 500 of IPC rendered by
the trial court which is confirmed in appeal.
Crl.R.P.No.363/01 Page numbers
13. Regarding the sentence, the trial court imposed a sentence
of simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The lower
appellate court confirmed his conviction and sentence. The incident
occurred on 7/1/1993 i.e. about 16 years back. Taking into
consideration this aspect, I feel that a sentence of imprisonment till the
rising of court and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- , in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months would meet the ends of justice.
In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.
Conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 500 of IPC is
confirmed. Sentence is modified to the effect that the revision
petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of court
and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months. Fine amount, if realised, shall be paid
to PW1 as compensation as provided under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C.
The revision petitioner shall surrender before the trial court on or
before 15-12-2009. One month’s time is granted for payment of fine.
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
Crl.R.P.No.363/01 Page numbers
sv.