The importance of proving contentions with documentary evidence and the elements of defamation under IPC Section 499 and Section 500.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:-This Appeal Suit has been filed, under Section 96 CPC as against the judgement and decree, dated 31.08.2012, passed in O.S.No.7881 of 2010, by the XVII Additional District and Sessions Court, Chennai.)

1. This appeal has been filed, challenging the judgement and decree, dated 31.08.2012, passed in O.S.No.7881 of 2010 by the XVII Additional District and Sessions Court, Chennai.

2. The said suit has been filed for damages to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- and for publication of an apology/regret, in a manner as prominent as the defamatory article in the magazine.

3. The case of the Plaintiff is that in May 2007, the 4th Defendant had approached the Plaintiff and some of her friends, for taking their photographs and using them in a Weekly Magazine, Kumudham, in an article on Education. With her consent, the said article along with her photographs was published in the Kumudham magazine, in their issue, titled “Arpudhamana 5 Padippugal” dated 30.05.2007. After a period of 1 ½ years, the Defendants used her photos taken in the year 2007 for another article, titled as “Poi Solla Porom” in their magazine, dated 12.11.2008, without her consent. The said article was related to speak with boys in a husky voice at night times, which is clearly a defamatory material. After the publication of the article, her relatives, friends and family members opined that her good character and reputation were lowered. She has no connection with the said article. The Defendants have acted with a malafide intention and they are merely saying it was a mistake. The Plaintiff suffered a great amount of damage to her good character and reputation at her workplace and in the Society. She had sent a legal notice to the Defendants on 18.11.2008 for payment of damages and also to publish an apology/regret for the damage caused to the Plaintiff. In such circumstances, the suit was filed for the reliefs, as stated above.

4. In the written statement filed by the Defendants, it is stated that the suit was filed at the instance of the parents of the Plaintiff, with a view to shift the responsibility on them and to show to the Society that their daughter has not offered such contents in the article. She had willingly offered her comments, when approached by the 4th Defendant and consented to publish her photos in the article. The 4th Defendant approached the Plaintiff and her friends, took interview and also the Plaintiff and her friends had willingly given their consent to publish the contents of the reply and also consented to publish their photos. The Plaintiff had consented not only for the publication of the contents of the reply, but also for the use of the photograph which was taken in an earlier occasion to be published in the magazine. The article contained the statement of the concerned persons is verbatim and did not contain any defamatory statement. The grievance of the Plaintiff that the regret was not published with all importance and in a prominent place deserves to be dismissed on the sole reason that the request from the Plaintiff and other friends came in the last minute of the printing of the next immediate issue. The Plaintiff had enjoyed the publicity for five days of the publication of the article and at the behest of her parents, foisted this suit against the Defendants. Therefore, this suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court:-

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for Rs.15,00,000/- as damages from the defendants?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the publication of apology as prayed for in the suit?

3. To what other relief?

6. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the Plaintiff, PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked and on the part of the Defendants, DW.1 to DW.4 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked. The Trial Court had decreed the suit. Aggrieved over the same, the Defendants have preferred this appeal suit.

7. This Co