THUKUPARAMBATH RAVEENDRAN Vs. KUNNUMMAL SREEDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the complainant challenging the acquittal of the respondents/accused in S. T. R. No. 210 of 1996 on the file of the Sub Judge - cum - Sub Divisional judicial Magistrate at Mahe, as per the judgment dated 27. 11. 1995.

(2.) THE case of the appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred to as'the complainant') is that on 16. 01. 1994, A-1 distributed a hand bill titled as'madhusoodhana, where are you?'in Malayalam language to persons in different areas. According to him, the hand bill is intended to defame and lower the reputation of the complainant and those associated in the Renovation of Sastha Temple and the words used in the said hand bill described him as swallower of temple funds, cheating the people by prescribing as a Quack Physician and compared him with epic character like'dussadhana and Bhamasura'. According to him, it is highly defamatory to him as well as to the Temple Renovation committee and its office bearers. THErefore, the complainant gave complaint ex. P. 3 to the Superintendent of Police, Mahe, against A-1 to A-3 alleging that a-1 distributed hand bills Exs. P. 1 and P. 2 containing defamatory matter at the instance and financial assistance of A-2 printed at Sree Devi Printers of A-3, which, according to the complainant, is highly defamatory to him as well as to the Temple Renovation Committee and its office bearers and the same was taken on file under Section 500 I. P. C.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the complainant argued that the trial Court has not considered the evidence on the side of the complainant properly and as such, the acquittal of the accused is not proper. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that in support of complaint, p. Ws. 2 to 8 have given evidence about the defamation caused by A-1 to A-3 in printing and distributing hand bills on 16. 1. 1994 in which statements have been made defaming P. W. 1 and also the members of the Renovation committee of the Temple . It is also argued by the learned counsel that the statements in the hand bills are to the effect and to give impression as if comparing the members of the Templ e with evil characters from epic and intended to defame P. W. 1 and other members of the Renovation Committee of the Temple .