Bombay High Court
Pyarelal Maganlal Jaiswal
Versus
State of Maharashtra and others
Decided On:

Headnote:Section 360-See Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 500.

       Section 500-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 360-Proofof defamation-Accused by utteravees in a meeting harming complainants reputation-No dispute regarding presence of accused in-Evidence of witnesses consistent and trustworthy-Conviction held proper as accuseds guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt-Accused entitled to benefit of probation as he neither a previous convict nor habitual offender.

       The deposition of these four witnesses is consistent on this aspect. Merely because there is some variation of words. It cannot be said that there is any difference in the utterances attributed to accused. The presence of the accused is not disputed and even the defence witnesses have admitted that the accused was present in the said meeting. In cross-examination nothing could be elicited which could create doubt about the testimony of C.W. 1, C.W. 2., C.W. 3 and C.W. 4.

       The trial Court despite the aforesaid evidence by the erroneous approach held that there has to be exact corroboration of utterances by all the witnesses and discarded the testimony of C.W. 1, C.W. 2, C.W. 3, and C.W. 4 on the misplaced finding that there was discrepancy in the testimony of these witnesses. The deposition which has been referred to above of all these four witnesses is consistent on the point that Pyarelal complainant was shown to be corrupt in his speech by the accused.

       In Balraj Khanna v. Moti Ram. AIR 1971 SC 1389, the Apex Court held:

       After a consideration of the various decisions referred to above, we are of the opinion that the proposition laid down in English decisions dealing with libel that the actual words alleged to be used must be stated in the indictment cannot be applied on all fours when dealing with the cases of defamation by spoken words under Section 499, I.P.C. It will be highly desirable no doubt if the actual words dated to have been used by an accused and which are all to be defamatory are reproduced by the complainant. The actual words used or the statements made may be reproduced verbatim by the complainant if the words are few and the statement is very brief. But in cases where the words spoken are too many or the statements made are too long, in our opinion, it will be the height of technicality to insist that the actual words and the entire statements should be reproduced verbatim. The object of having, if possible, the actual words or the statements before the Court is to enable it to consider whether those words or the statements are defamatory in nature. That purpose or object will be served if the complainant is able to reproduce in his complaint or evidence in a substantial measure the words of imputation alleged to have been uttered. If the statements or the words placed before the Court by the complainant are held to be not defamatory, it will mean that the complainant will have to lose. Therefore, it is to his interest to get a proper adjudication from the Court that as far as possible the words spoken or the statements actually made and which he alleges to be defamatory are before the Court. But a complaint cannot be thrown out on the mere ground that the actual words spoken or the statements made have not been stated in the complaint. From the point of view of accused also, it is necessary that the mailers alleged to be defamatory in the complaint must be so stated as to enable them to know the nature of the allegations that they have to meet.

       The trial Court did not advert to the settled legal position propounded by the Apex Court relating to defamatory spoken words and oral statements and on unsustainable ground found the evidence led by the complainant to be inconsistent when in fact there was none and the trial Court acted on the height of technicality in rejecting the testimony of C.W. 1, C.W. 2, C.W. 3, and C.W. 4.

       For Citation : 1996 Cr LJ 989 (Bom)