T. LOUIS CHINNAPPA @ T. CHETAN PRATAP S/O C. THOMAS REDDY Vs. T. JOSEPH S/O LATE G. THOMAS AND T. MARTIN S/O LATE C. THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. are directed against the judgments and order dated 11.03.2008 passed in C.C. Nos. 12605/2003, 12607/2003 and 12604/2003, acquitting the respondent(s)/accused persons of the charge levelled against him/them for the offences punishable under Section 500 r/w 120 -B of IPC.

(2.) THE common appellant in these appeals was the complainant before the Court below. He filed three private complaints against the respondent(s)/accused herein alleging offence under Section 500 r/w. 120 -B of IPC inter alia contending that, during the course of the investigation in Crime No. 370/1998 on the file of the HAL police station, the respondent/s have made statements before the Investigating Officer, in which they have made defamatory statements against the complainant with an intention to defame him and to lower his reputation in the public, as such, they have committed the aforesaid offence. The respondent(s)/accused pleaded not guilty for the accusation made against him/them. After the trial, the learned Magistrate by independent judgments passed on 11.03.2008, acquitted the accused persons in all the three cases. It is against the said judgments of acquittal, the complainant has presented these appeals under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate while acquitting the accused, recorded a finding that the complainant has failed to prove the alleged statements stated to have been made by the accused before the police during their investigation. The learned Magistrate has further opined that, the alleged statements are not defamatory, therefore, the accused are not guilty of the offence alleged. No doubt, in order to prove the statements said to have been made by the accused before the Investigating Officer, the complainant has examined the very Police Officer, as PW.3 in all these cases. No doubt, PW.3 in his evidence has stated that he conducted investigation In Crime No. 370/1998 of HAL Police Station and during investigation he recorded statements of several witnesses. However, he does not remember the persons who made statements before him during investigation of that case and also he was not in a position to identify them. No doubt the statements made under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. before the Police Officer during investigation is not exempted from the purview of Section 499, and such statements cannot be claimed as privilege statements under Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act. In order to prove the offence under Section 500 of IPC, the following ingredients, as required by Section 499 of IPC are required to be established: