Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a criminal complaint filed by Radhelal Mangalal Jaiswal (since deceased, represented by his son Prakash) against Sheshrao Anandrao Lad for defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complainant alleged that the accused, who was the Sarpanch of the village, had lodged a false police report against him on 17 July 1980, leading to his prosecution under Sections 379 and 427 IPC. The complainant was acquitted in that case on 30 November 1982. He claimed that the false report lowered his prestige and status among his well-wishers, relatives, and friends. The trial Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 1,000. The accused appealed to the Sessions Court, which set aside the conviction and acquitted him. The complainant's son then filed a criminal revision application before the High Court challenging the acquittal. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the complainant had not examined any witness to prove that the alleged defamatory words were published or communicated to any third party. The only witness examined was the complainant himself, who stated that the accused had lodged a false report, but there was no evidence that anyone else heard or knew about it. The court held that publication to a third party is an essential ingredient of defamation under Section 500 IPC, and in its absence, the conviction cannot stand. The High Court also noted that the revisional court's jurisdiction is limited and it cannot interfere with a finding of fact unless it is perverse. Since the appellate court's decision was based on proper appreciation of evidence, the revision application was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Defamation - Section 500 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Publication Requirement - The essential ingredient of defamation is publication of the defamatory imputation to a third party. In the absence of any evidence that the alleged defamatory words were heard or communicated to any person other than the complainant, the conviction cannot be sustained. The appellate court correctly set aside the conviction as the complainant failed to prove publication. (Paras 4-5)
B) Criminal Law - Appeal against acquittal - Scope of Revision - The revisional court's jurisdiction is limited to examining the legality, propriety, and correctness of the impugned order. Where the appellate court's finding of fact is based on appreciation of evidence and is not perverse, the revisional court will not interfere. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the accused under Section 500 IPC was sustainable when there was no evidence that the alleged defamatory words were published or communicated to any third party.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, upholding the acquittal of the accused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha.
Law Points
- Defamation
- Section 500 IPC
- Publication requirement
- Acquittal upheld
- Lack of evidence
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (02) 115
Criminal Revision Application No. 6/2008
Mr. Abhijit Sambare for the applicant, Mr. Amol Mardikar for Respondent No.1, Mr. Anand Fulzele, APP for Respondent No.2
Prakash s/o Radhelal Jaiswal (legal heir of deceased Radhelal Mangalal Jaiswal)
Sheshrao s/o Anandrao Lad and The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision application challenging the acquittal of the accused in a defamation case.
Remedy Sought
The applicant (legal heir of the original complainant) sought to set aside the appellate court's order of acquittal and restore the conviction of the accused under Section 500 IPC.
Filing Reason
The applicant was aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha, which set aside the conviction of the accused for defamation.
Previous Decisions
The trial Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 500 IPC and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 1,000. The appellate court set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused.
Issues
Whether the appellate court was correct in setting aside the conviction under Section 500 IPC on the ground that there was no evidence of publication of the defamatory words to a third party.
Whether the revisional court should interfere with the appellate court's finding of fact.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that the appellate court erred in acquitting the accused as the evidence on record clearly showed that the accused had lodged a false police report, which amounted to defamation.
The respondent argued that the complainant failed to prove that the alleged defamatory words were published or communicated to any third party, which is an essential ingredient of defamation under Section 500 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi
For an offence under Section 500 IPC, it is essential that the defamatory imputation is published or communicated to a third party. In the absence of any evidence that the alleged defamatory words were heard or known to any person other than the complainant, the conviction cannot be sustained. The revisional court will not interfere with a finding of fact that is based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not perverse.
Judgment Excerpts
The essential ingredient of defamation is publication of the defamatory imputation to a third party.
In the present case, the complainant has not examined any witness to show that the alleged defamatory words were published or communicated to any third party.
The revisional court's jurisdiction is limited and it cannot interfere with a finding of fact unless it is perverse.
Procedural History
The original complainant Radhelal Mangalal Jaiswal filed Criminal Complaint No. 830/1983 under Section 500 IPC against Sheshrao Anandrao Lad. The trial Magistrate convicted the accused on 21 April 1983. The accused appealed to the Sessions Court, Darwha, which allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction on 21 August 2007. The complainant's son filed Criminal Revision Application No. 6/2008 before the High Court, which was dismissed on 17 February 2011.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 500, 379, 427
