IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 293 of 2001() ----------------------------- MP.4500/2000 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------- K.V.VISWANATHAN, S/O KURIAKOT VELAPPAN, VISWAM VINDOES, PUZHAKKAL VILLAGE, TRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN SMT.V.RENJU RESPONDENT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- DR.P.K.RAMACHANDRA MENON M.D.,PHYSICIAN, MOTHER HOSPITAL, P.O.PULLAZHI, OLARI, TRISSUR. ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.P.MAYA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.C.HARI RANI, J. ----------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.293 OF 2001 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009 ORDER This revision is preferred by the petitioner/complainant in M.P.No.4500/2000 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur. The petitioner filed the complaint on 1-8-2000 under section 190 Cr.P.C. alleging that the respondent has committed the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC. The sworn statement of the complainant was recorded on 14-8-2000. His wife was examined as the witness, CW1 on 19-8-2000. Heard on 26-8-2000. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint originally as per order dated 2.9.2000 with the finding that “prima facie case has not been made against the accused. Hence the complaint is dismissed.” The complainant has challenged that order before this Court and as per order dated 29-11-2000 in Crl.R.P.No.977/2000, this Court set aside the earlier order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the complaint was restored to file with direction to the complainant to appear before the court below on 12-12-2000. The court below was CRRP 293/2001 -2- directed to give an opportunity to the petitioner to examine all the witnesses. Thereafter, CWs 2 to 6 were examined and as per order dated 10.1.2001, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The petitioner/complainant preferred this revision petition before this Court challenging the dismissal of the complaint filed by him. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ complainant and the respondent/accused. The true copy of the complaint filed by the complainant is produced along with this petition as Annexure-I. The case of the complainant in the complaint is that on 21.5.2000 at about 9PM, the petitioner had complaint of acute stomach pain and he was brought to the Mother Hospital by his wife and some of the neighbours in his own car driven by his driver. At that time, the accused while examining him has made the alleged imputation against him that he consumed some poison which was disclosed by the accused/Doctor in that Hospital in the presence of his wife and the neighbours. Though that statement made by the Doctor was denied by his wife,the neighbours who were present at that time CRRP 293/2001 -3- spread that news in the locality which has wounded the reputation and status of the complainant among the members of the public. He is a photographer in Thrissur and a reputed person. The accused made such a defamatory statement against the complainant without any basis which also caused mental pain and injury to the complainant and hence he preferred the complaint. 3. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant and the examination of one witness as CW1 who is none other than his wife, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. on 2.9.2000. That order has been set aside by this Court in the earlier Crl.R.P.No.977/2000 by order dated 29.11.2000. The complaint was restored to file and CWs 2 to 6 were examined subsequently. The grievance of the petitioner in the earlier Crl.R.P. was that the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint without giving an opportunity to the complainant to examine all the witnesses shown in the witness list furnished by the complainant. Accordingly, an opportunity was given to the complainant to CRRP 293/2001 -4- examine all the witnesses as per order dated 29.11.2000 by this Court in Crl.R.P.No.977/2000. In the witness list furnished by the complainant along with the complaint, names of seven witnesses were incorporated out of which witness Nos. 2, 4, 1, 3 and 5 were examined as CWs 2 to 6 respectively by the learned Magistrate on 12.12.2000 and 16.12.2000. All these witnesses were the neighbours of the petitioner and they were examined to prove the same fact, i.e., while all of them were sitting in the house of CW2 Ramachandran at night on 21.5.2000, the son of the petitioner, Vipin came there and informed them that his father is not well and is suffering from stomach pain. On hearing this, they went to the house of the petitioner and taken him to the Mother Hospital. CW1, the wife of the petitioner also went along with CWs 2 to 6. At that time, the accused examined the petitioner and informed them that the petitioner consumed some insecticide which was denied by the wife of the petitioner. The Doctor has repeated that imputation which was believed by CWs 2 to 6 and they disclosed the same to the persons in the locality, which caused defamation to the petitioner. This is the evidence CRRP 293/2001 -5- given by CWs 1 to 6. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint after verifying the sworn statement given by the complainant and also the evidence given by CW1, the wife and CWs 2 to 6, the neighbours. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that altogether six witnesses were examined on the side of the petitioner. But, the impugned order does not reveal about the examination of any of the witnesses examined on the side of the petitioner to prove the offence alleged against the respondent. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the Doctor made the impugned statement that the petitioner consumed some poison, which was made in the presence of neighbours and that news spread in the locality which wounded his reputation and status among the members of the public. 5. The offence alleged against the respondent has been denied by the respondent in the reply notice issued by him to the lawyer notice issued by the complainant. Copy of the lawyer notice sent by the complainant and also the copy of the reply notice sent by the respondent were produced by the petitioner CRRP 293/2001 -6- along with the complaint. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, no defamatory statement has been made by the respondent against the petitioner and no motive has been alleged against him either in the lawyer notice or in the sworn statement given by the petitioner and also in the evidence given by the witnesses for stating such statement with the intention to cause defamation to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the respondent who is a Doctor in the Mother Hospital has examined the petitioner at 9.30 PM on 21.5.2000 and at that time he was in a state of sedation and has enquired from the bystanders and also from the wife of the patient whether the petitioner had consumed any poison. He has enquired the same to the wife and also to the bystanders for the purpose of saving the life of the petitioner who was brought in the hospital for providing treatment to stomach pain. 6. The petitioner was firstly examined by the R.M.O. at 9 PM on that day and after preliminary examination, he was examined by the accused. Copy of the discharge summary issued from the Mother Hospital is also produced along with the CRRP 293/2001 -7- complaint by the petitioner. The diagnosis noted therein is as follows: “ACUTE PNEUMONITIS WITH DIAPHRAGMATIC PLEURISY MILD HYPERTENSION” In the reply notice it is stated that the Doctor has put questions to the bystanders for the purpose of eliciting the history of the patient and to clear the doubts for providing proper treatment to the petitioner. He has collected such history from the bystanders who disclosed that the petitioner was in the habit of taking alcohol. He enquired the same to rule out the suspicion of possible poisoning along with alcohol. The accused had no intention to lower the status of the petitioner and put the questions to the bystanders before starting the treatment to the petitioner and for proper diagnosis in order to save the life of the petitioner. 7. Section 499 of IPC reads as follows: 499. Defamation - Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person CRRP 293/2001 -8- intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person. xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Ninth Exception- Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests - It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.” In order to attract the offence under Section 499 of I.P.C., the offender must intend to harm the reputation of the victim amongst public or must do the culpable act with the contumacious knowledge and belief and that such harm would result the reputation of the aggrieved complainant. CRRP 293/2001 -9- 8. In this case, it is not disputed that the Doctor has enquired to the wife of the petitioner and also to the bystanders examined as CWs 1 to 6 that whether the petitioner had consumed any poison and there is any possibility of consuming alcohol with poison. This statement made by the accused will come under the 9th exception to Section 499 of IPC . That imputation was made by the accused for protection of his own interest as the Doctor for treating the petitioner and also for the purpose of giving protection and to save the life of the petitioner, which cannot be punished under Section 500 of IPC for the reason that it cannot be treated as an offence under Section 499 of IPC. as alleged by the petitioner/complainant. On a perusal of the complaint and also the evidence on record, there cannot be an impression that any imputation was made by the accused with the malevolent motive or desire to cast aspersions on the complainant or to expose him to inflict or to affect his reputation amongst public. Therefore, no offence under Section 499 I.P.C.is disclosed against the accused. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has properly considered the evidence let in by the CRRP 293/2001 -10- witnesses and dismissed the complaint with the finding that “complainant has not made out a prima facie case against the accused and there is no sufficient ground to issue process in this case against the Doctor arrayed as accused in the complaint.” This conclusion is correct. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the petition is dismissed. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn CRRP 293/2001 -11- M.C. HARI RANI, J. ========================== CRL.R.P.NO. 293 OF 2001 ORDER 24-9-2009 ===========================