Karnataka High Court Acquits Newspaper's Editor In Defamation Case, Says Onus Was On Complainant To Show Before Whom His Image Was Lowered

The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the conviction order passed by the trial court against Addanada Kariappa, Editor of Kannada Weekly Newspaper Veeranadu, in a criminal defamation case.

A single judge, Justice Rajesh Rai K by his order dated (April 8), acquitted the accused who was convicted by the trial court for offences punishable under Section 499, 500 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 7 days and to pay fine of Rs.10,000.

The bench said “The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC. The bail bond executed by the revision petitioner stands cancelled.”

The complainant Philiphose Mathew had filed a private complaint alleging that he is a Christian by religion who dedicated his life for social cause. The accused had on 01.09.2008, in his newspaper, published an objectionable editorial article, to perpetuate animosity among members of different religions. Hence a complaint was filed against the accused, Infuriated by this, he on 15.09.2008 published another objectionable editorial in which the accused made multiple imputations against the complainant.

It was alleged that by such publication in the newspaper the accused tarnished his reputation and sullied his dignity in public, putting him under tremendous mental agony and torture. Based on the evidence of the complainant and other witness the accused was convicted by the trial court and the judgement was confirmed before the appellate court.

In revision, the petitioner contended that on the face of allegations stipulated in the private complaint and the deposition of the witnesses, the complainant failed to make out that the alleged imputation caused harm to his reputation in the estimation of other, as required under explanation (4) to Section 499 of IPC, since the sole supporting witness PW.2 has categorically admitted in his evidence that the complainant informed him that the alleged imputation cause sullied his reputation.

Further, except PW.2 no evidence was led to substantiate that, either any member of public or community, upon reading the impugned editorials thought less of the complainant or altered their opinion of him.

The complainant opposed the plea submitting that the accused by publishing the news article as per Ex.P1 blotted the complainant's character and reputation. To establish the same the complainant examined himself as PW.1 and also examined one more witness PW.2 and placed the defamatory publications as per Exs.P1(a) to P1(d) which depicts the imputation made by the accused stooping the complainant's image and self esteem.

Findings:

The bench referred to Section 499 and said “To attract the offence of defamation there must be publication of imputation intending to harm the reputation of the person who felt defamed. The person, involving whom such publication is made, must prove that in estimation of others his moral or intellectual character is lowered down as a result of such false imputation. Further, to prove the said aspect it is the duty cast on the complainant to lead all necessary evidence before whom his image is ill-effected and lowered.”

Then it said “In the case on hand, albeit the complainant-PW.1 in his private complaint and the evidence stated that, the imputations as per Exs.P1(a) to P1(d) sullied his reputation, however, that in itself would not suffice to attract the offence under Section 499 of IPC.”

Further it said “The damage of the reputation can be ascertained and determined by other persons' estimation. In the instant case, the complainant examined PW.2 to prove the said aspect; however, PW.2 nowhere in his evidence stated that on reading the imputation, the moral and intellectual character of the complainant has been lowered in his estimation. On the contrary he deposed that, the complainant himself informed him that "the imputation caused harm to his reputation." Further, he explicitly re-affirmed his belief on the complainant's good character.”

Following which it held “No other witnesses have been examined in whose estimation the reputation of the complainant has been lowered owing to such imputation made by the accused. This aspect was not appreciated by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Against this backdrop, interference is required in the impugned judgments by this Court.”

Appearance: Amicus Curiae Angad Kamath for Petitioner.

Advocate Sachin B S for Respondent

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 183

Case Title: Addanada Karriappa And Philiphose Mathew

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1044 OF 2017

Click Here To Read/Download Order