Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 1036
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Paramjeet Singh, J.
Jaspal Singh - Appellant
Versus
Kailash Chand Jain - Respondent
CRM-A-738-MA-2015 (O&M)
Decided On : 10-07-2015
For the Petitioner:M.K. Saajan, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove mens-rea for the offence of defamation under Section 499 IPC, along with the emphasis on the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt.
Headnote:
Defamation - Indian Penal Code - Section 499, Section 500 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 499 IPC provides for the offence of defamation and is followed by 10 exceptions. Mens-rea is essential for the offence under Section 499 IPC. The court relied on the case law to establish that the accused must have published the news item with an intention to harm the reputation of the complainant. The court also emphasized the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt. The court dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused based on the evidence and circumstances of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a complaint against the respondent-accused under Section 499 read with Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code for publishing false news items to defame the applicant. The trial court acquitted the respondent of the charge, leading to the application for leave to appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court observed that the news item was published based on a press statement issued by the accused, and the complainant failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt.
Issues: The issues revolved around the publication of false news items with the intention to harm the reputation of the complainant, the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, and the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of mens-rea for the offence under Section 499 IPC and relied on case law to establish the necessity of proving an intention to harm the reputation of the complainant. The court also highlighted the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt.
Final Decision: The application for leave to appeal was dismissed on merit, and the court upheld the trial court's decision to dismiss the complaint and acquit the accused.
CRM-14348-2015
1. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and in view of grounds mentioned in the application, delay in filing the application for leave to appeal is condoned.
2. Application stands allowed.
CRM-A-738-MA-2015
3. The instant application has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 01.04.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh whereby complaint filed by the applicant under Section 499 read with Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') has been dismissed and the respondent has been acquitted of the charge framed against him.
4. Brief facts of the case are to the effect that the applicant filed the complaint against the respondent-accused with the averments that he is Editor of Hindi Weekly News Paper namely Jagrukta from the year 1991 onwards. The complainant was involved in numerous activities of the society such as to help the downtrodden without any selfish motive. Thus, he was known personality in the area of Manimajra, Chandigarh and surrounding area. The complainant was elected as Senior Vice president of Socialist Party in the year 1996. The socialist party also tried to encash on the popularity of the complainant in the area and thus nominated his candidature in Parliamentary Election in the year 1996 from the seat of Chandigarh. It is further averred that during election campaign the complainant became popular even amongst the candidates also and was elected as president of union of independent candidates during the parliamentary election for the year 1996 at Chandigarh. It is further alleged that the complainant has been active member of Uttranchal Yuva Patarchar Parishad since the year 1994. The complainant has been further active member of Rashtriya Patarkar Sangh registered since the year 1997. The complainant has been senior Vice President of Progressive Journalist Society since the year 1997. The complainant has been President of Rashtriya Jagrukta Morcha from the year 1997. The complainant dedicated himself without any selfish motive to the people of the country and was having bright future politically as well as otherwise and was prominent whom the people were giving lot of love as well as heartily affection. After seeing the popularity in the eyes of general public, name of the complainant was recommended by accused no.1 for the post of President in writing for the area of Chandigarh Territorial Youth Congress (S) on 27.5.1997 and inducted the complainant to join Chandigarh Territorial Youth Congress. Under the inducement of accused No. 1, the complainant joined the Chandigarh Territorial Youth Congress (S) and during the general election of the party was unanimously elected as President in the year 1997. The complainant was further actively taking part in various party and other welfare programmes and was having good reputation in the party, public, friends, relatives and society. Future of the complainant was bright as career of the complainant was blotless. Due to hard working nature, integrity, sincerity etc. of the complainant in the party he gained popularity in the Youth Congress (S) at all India level also. The complainant participated in India Youth Congress (S) elections and was elected General Secretary on 19.12.1997 in Special Session held in Chennai. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are also the active members of the Congress (S). Both of them became jealous of the popularity gained by the complainant within the Youth Congress (S) and outside the party also at such rapid speed. Both of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were worried about their fate and future in the party. Thus to defame the complainant in the general opinion of the public, society, party, friends, relatives etc. both of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 hatched criminal conspiracy against the complainant. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 with mutual consent of each other issued a false statement on 23.2.1998 in the Tribune & Dainik Tri
