JUDGMENT

H.P. Sandesh, J. - This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 03.09.2010 passed in Crl.A.No.367/2006 acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Trial Court as complainant and accused to avoid the confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant married the accused on 05.11.1974 and the said marriage was dissolved on 09.08.1978 as per the decree of the Court. It is the allegation of the complainant that after the dissolution of the marriage, the accused had been writing open letters to the complainant containing per se defamatory matters to her residential address as well as official address, wherein the complainant was working and also addressing letters to her colleagues. The said letters, which were written in the open cards have been read by her colleagues. The accused has insulted the womanhood of the complainant describing her as a 'born prostitute' and threatened that he would make publication in all newspapers to that effect. The contents of those letters attribute unchastity to her and per se defamatory. Many of the letters are in the form of open cards sent to her office address and also addressed to her Bank Manager and thereby it has been read by her colleagues and others and defamed the complainant. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint against the accused.

4. The Trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, vide judgment dated 29.11.2006 found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days. However, the accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC.

5. The accused being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, preferred Crl.A.No.367/2006 before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 03.09.2010 set aside the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, this present appeal is filed by the complainant/appellant.

6. The main grounds urged in this appeal is that the learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record and no valid and justifiable reasons are assigned to upset the judgment of conviction. The Appellate Court failed to take note of the fact that the letters written by the accused are in open post cards and some of the letters are addressed to the Manager and staff of the Bank. Moreover, the evidence of the complainant P.W.1 coupled with evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 proves the publication. The well reasoned judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court has been set aside on the ground that there is nothing on record to show that the contents of those letters were made known to the public. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge in the appeal is factually incorrect. The ingredients of offence under Section 500 of IPC have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused and the Appellate Court has committed illegality in upsetting the judgment of conviction. It is also contended that acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC by the Trial Court is also unsustainable. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

7. The learned counsel for the complainant/appellant in his oral arguments vehemently contended that the Appellate Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that there is no material with regard to the publication of per se defamatory allegations made in the letters. The counsel would also submit that P.W.4 handwriting expert has categorically deposed that the documents of Exs.P.1 to 7 are in the handwriting of the accused and has given the report in terms of Exs.P.19 and 20 i.e., the report and certificate of