The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 500 of the IPC in determining defamation based on the intention and impact of the words used.

Dev Darshan Sud, J

The petitioner has preferred this revision against the judgment in appeal of the learned Fast Track Court, Hamirpur.

2. The respondent instituted a complaint under Section 500 IPC against the petitioner on the allegations that he is a retired army personnel. On 12.7.2000 at about 8.30 AM Smt. Leela Devi, wife of Shri Raj Kumar, resident of village Ghumarwin, Tehsil Barsar came to his house and told him that some members of the Gram Panchayat Baliah alongwith the villagers have come to her residence to inspect the spot about which there was a dispute. She informed him that she was raising some pillars on the land which was her property and she went to build a house there. Since her husband was not at home, she requested the respondent to accompany her to the spot. The complainant/respondent who claimed to be a social worker accompanied her to the spot. At about 8.45 AM, he found that the members of the Panchayat and residents of the village had gathered there and were asking Smt. Leela Devi to stop work immediately. When this matter was being discussed, the petitioner came to the spot with his brother Shri Khalelu Ram and pounced upon the complainant, shouted at him and asked him as to how he was present on the spot. When Smt. Leela Devi intervened and told the accused that she had asked him to help her, the accused is supposed to have remarked “behan chod bakwas karta hai, Yahan sey Dafa ho ja. Dafa hota hai ki nahin.” The complainant-respondent did not retaliate and the people on the spot namely Karam Chand, Anant Ram and others condemned the behaviour of the petitioner. The gist of the case set out by the complainant was that by abusing him in the vilest terms willfully and consciously, the petitioner has harmed his reputation and lowered his prestige in the estimation of the general public. There was no justification for these remarks/vulgar abuse.

3. After recording preliminary evidence, the petitioner-accused was summoned to Court to face trial under Section 500 IPC. He denied his guilt and claimed trial. He insisted that he was called on the spot by the Gram Panchayat. His defence was that the evidence produced against him was false and the witnesses were lying.

4. The complainant appeared as PW1 and stated that the words, as reproduced above, were used by the respondent. PW5 Leela Devi also corroborated the case including the words used, the entire prosecution evidence in its entirety. She went out to say that the accused had torn the report prepared by the Panchayat. A suggestion was put to her that she encroached upon the land of someone, which she denied, but admitted the fact that she has received summons from the court of Naib Tehsildar. The other witnesses are PW2 Karam Chand, PW3 Anant Ram and PW4 Mansho Devi. PW3 also states that the complainant was asked to get out from the gathering etc.

5. The petitioner also produced defence evidence DW1 Nikka Ram who states that no interrogatory words were used by the accused against the complainant. To similar effect is the statement of DW2 Siri Ram, DW3 Amru Ram, DW4 Parkash Chand and DW5 Chet Ram. DW3 and DW4 were produced to show that on 18.7.2000 a complaint was lodged against the complainant by petitioner Mohan Lal. DW4 states that there was some report of Patwari dated 2.8.2000 Ext.DW4/A noticing some encroachment etc.

6. While considering the case of the parties, the learned trial Magistrate held that the foundation of the defence of the petitioner herein was that there was enmity between the parties as two complaints Mark A and Mark B made by the petitioner herein to the DFO, Hamirpur against the complainant but the same were made after the incident. He uses this as a factor to appreciate the evidence on record and to hold that since this document came on record after the incident, the petitioner was making an effort to create evidence of enmity. He accordingly accepted the case of the respondent and sentenced the petitioner herein for r