IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 363 of 2001() ----------------------------- CRA.53/1996 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CC.82/1993 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PATTAMBI) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------- M.V.RAVEENDRAN S/O KARUNAKARA VARIYAR PODIYATTU VARIYAM HOUSE NO.1/583 NAGALASSERI AMSOM VADALIKA VAVANNUR DESOM P.O. THEKKE VAVANNUR BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT --------------- 1. DR.RAMAKRISHNAN MODERN HOSPITAL KOTTANAD PALAKKAD DISTRICT 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ADV. SRI.T.A.RAJAGOPALAN FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SMT.REKHA C. NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.363 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.82/1993 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pattambi and appellant in Crl.Appeal No.53/1996 of Sessions Court, Palakkad. He was convicted under Section 500 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. His conviction and sentence was confirmed in appeal. The accused has now come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence. 2. The case was initiated on a private complaint filed by the complainant against the accused alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC. The case of complainant as testified by him as PW1 before the trial court and as detailed in his complaint in brief is this : The complainant is a Doctor holding an MBBS decree and he is running a hospital named Modern Hospital, Koottanad. The accused is Crl.R.P.No.363/01 Page numbers the President of 'Rajiv Vichar Vedi'. The complainant is a retired Military Captain . His wife is also a Doctor. The accused published notice Ext.P4 which is per se defamatory to the complainant as a result of which complainant has lost his deputation and it demeans his status and position. 3. On receipt of the complaint, the trial court recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and took cognizance of the offence. The accused on appearance before the trial court pleaded not guilty to a charge under Section 500 of IPC. PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked on the side of the complainant. As a prima facie case was made out against the accused, charge under Section 500 was framed to which the accused pleaded not guilty. Thereafter witnesses were recalled and further cross examined by the accused. When questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by the trial court, the accused denied having committed any offence . No defence evidence was adduced. 4. The trial court on an appreciation of evidence found that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 500 of Crl.R.P.No.363/01 Page numbers IPC and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him as aforesaid which is confirmed in appeal. Now the accused has come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence. 5. The following points arise for consideration : 1) Whether the notice Ext.P4 was published by the accused and if so whether it defames and harm the reputation of the complainant ? 2) Whether the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 500 of IPC can be sustained ? 3) Whether the sentence imposed is excessive or unduly harsh ? 6. The counsel for revision petitioner argued that Ext.P4 notice does not contain any defamatory statement and that therefore revision petitioner has to be acquitted. There is no merit in the above contention. The relevant portion of Ext.P4 notice was extracted by the trial court as well as lower appellate court in their respective Crl.R.P.No.363/01 Page numbers judgments. I have also gone through Ext.P4 notice . I am in complete agreement with the finding of the trial court as well as lower appellate court that it contains defamatory remarks against PW1. 7. PW1 to PW4 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked on the side of the complainant before trial court. PW1, the complainant testified in terms of the complaint. He would say that describing him as a 'compounder' in Ext.P4 has insulted him and also harmed his reputation and lowered his character in public. His evidence is supported by PWs 2 to PW4. 8. PW2 testified that he had seen the manuscript of the notice in the press of accused and that he had also seen accused and two others distributing the notice. It was not suggested during his cross examination that he has any enmity towards the accused. Therefore, the trial court as well as the lower appellate court is perfectly justified in believing his evidence. His evidence shows that Ext.P4 notice was printed and distributed by the accused. 9. PW3 is an auto rickshaw driver. He testified that while he was in the library of Koottanad where several people gathered one Crl.R.P.No.363/01 Page numbers Sundaran an employee of the press of accused brought Ext.P4 notice and reading the same he came to understand that it was about the accused and that accused has a good reputation in that locality and that describing accused as a compounder has lowered the reputation of accused in public. PW4 is another independent witness who had seen Ext.P4 notice in the press of accused. He would say that accused is the President of Ragiv Vichar Vedi, that accused asked him to distribute the notice which he refused. The evidence of PW2 to PW4 shows that Ext.P4 notice was printed and published by the accused and on a reading of Ext.P4 they were caused to form a lower opinion about PW1. 10. Thus the evidence of PW2 to PW4 clearly shows that describing PW1 as a compounder in Ext.P4 is per se defamatory and has lowered the good reputation of PW1 as a doctor in the public as enumerated under Explanation 4 of Section 499 of IPC. It is also proved by the evidence of PW1 to PW4 and the admission made by accused in reply notice Ext.P6 that it was the accused who printed and published the notice Ext.P4. The accused has no case that the Crl.R.P.No.363/01 Page numbers allegation in Ext.P4 would come within any of the explanation to Section 499 of Cr.P.C. 11. Counsel for revision petitioner arguing the revision submitted that to constitute an offence of defamatory as prescribed under Section 499 of IPC the complainant should prove that there was an intention on the part of the accused to defame the complainant and that in this case complainant has failed to prove the same. I am unable to agree. Describing PW1 as a compounder and publishing Ext.P4 notice clearly show that the intention of accused was to defame him in the eye of public. That apart, accused has doubted the education qualification of PW1 and PW1 was compelled to produce Exts.P1 to P3, his certificates. It is clear from the above that the intention of accused was to lower the reputation of PW1 in public. Therefore, the action of accused clearly comes within the verdict of Section 499 of IPC. 12. For all these reasons, I am inclined to uphold the conviction of revision petitioner/accused under Section 500 of IPC rendered by the trial court which is confirmed in appeal. Crl.R.P.No.363/01 Page numbers 13. Regarding the sentence, the trial court imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The lower appellate court confirmed his conviction and sentence. The incident occurred on 7/1/1993 i.e. about 16 years back. Taking into consideration this aspect, I feel that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of court and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- , in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. Conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 500 of IPC is confirmed. Sentence is modified to the effect that the revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of court and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Fine amount, if realised, shall be paid to PW1 as compensation as provided under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner shall surrender before the trial court on or before 15-12-2009. One month's time is granted for payment of fine. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE Crl.R.P.No.363/01 Page numbers sv.