The burden of proof on the accused to claim exemption under the exceptions of defamation under Section 499 of IPC and the importance of proving imputation of truth for public good or good faith for protection of interests.

JUDGMENT

M G Uma, J. - The appellant/complainant approached this Court aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.01.2011 passed in C.C.No.1719/2005, on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Bhatkal (for short, referred to as the 'trial Court'), acquitting respondents/accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code (for short, referred to as IPC).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Anant Hegde, through video conference and the learned counsel Sri. Venkatesh M.Kharvi for the respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case of the complainant before the trial Court is that, accused No.1 is the printer, publisher and editor and accused No.2 is the reporter of 'Kadala Koogu' weekly magazine. It is stated that the accused have published a news item in their magazine on 15.08.2005 with the headline- . In the caption and in the article accused made imputation concerning the complainant, with an intention and knowledge, to harm her reputation as it contained defamatory accusation against her character. The complainant was working as a teacher and in view of the publication of defamatory article by accused Nos.1 and 2, her reputation in the eyes of others was lowered and the members of the society, including her students, started looking at her with suspicion. Therefore, she issued a legal notice calling upon accused Nos.1 and 2 to withdraw the article and to pay the compensation. The notice was served on accused No.1. Accused No.2 has refused to receive the notice. Both of them have not complied with the demand made therein. Therefore, the private complaint was filed before the trial Court.

4. The trial Court after following the procedure took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to both the accused to appear before the Court. The accused appeared before the Court and pleaded not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC and claimed to be tried.

5. The complainant got examined herself as PW1 and examined PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P7 in support of her contentions. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have denied all the incriminating materials on record. They have examined themselves as DWs.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.D1 to D13 in support of their defence. The trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record came to the conclusion that the words used by the accused in the article are objectionable in nature. But however felt that the whole article is not defamatory and accused Nos.1 and 2 were acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC. Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the complainant has preferred this appeal on various grounds.

6. Learned counsel Sri.Anant Hegde appearing for the appellant, submitted that even according to the trial Court, the publication is objectionable in law. The trial Court also observed that the publication is against a woman, working as teacher. Inspite of that the accused were acquitted with out any valid reason. He submitted that when the accused have not proved that they are saved under any of the exceptions under Section 499 of IPC, the trial Court should have convicted the accused for the above said offence.

7. Learned counsel relied on the decision in Chaman Lal Vs. The State of Punjab, (1970) 1 SCC 590 and Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Others, (2016) 7 SCC 221 in support of his contention and prayed for allowing the appeal by convicting both the accused.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh M. Kharvi for the respondents supporting the impugned judgment submitted that even though the publication of the article is admitted by the accused, the trial Court considered the defence taken by them and rightly acquitted the accused. He submitted that true facts were published in the article after due enquiry and similar articles were published against the complainant in other newspapers and magazines and that no defamatory words were publi