MISS VIOLET WAPSHARE Vs. MISS MAUREEN FROUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MISS Maureen Froud, the Respondent herein, complained to the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Gudalur, that Miss Violet Wapshare, the Petitioner, defamed her in the dining room at " Rosemount " in Ootacamund on the 31st of March, 1967 by describing her as a lady who had suffered many abortions and by using the words " bitch " and prostitute " in the presence of some persons including P. Ws. 2 and 3. On this complaint, process was issued. The complainant, as P.W. 1, deposed to her case and stated that the Petitioner used the defamatory words. P.W. 2, who is a cook did not say that he heard any such words. Similarly was the evidence given by P.W. 3. Observing that the words used were defamatory in character, the learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate convicted and sentenced the Petitioner under Section 499 read with Section 500, I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 300 is default to Section 1. for one month. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, confirmed the conviction, but reduced the sentence of fine to Rs. 100.

(2.) THE correctness of this conviction is now canvassed in revision.

(3.) THE word " harm " used here relates to imputations on a man's character made and expressed to others; so as to lower him in their estimation and anything which lowers him merely in his own estimation certainly does not constitute defamation. In the instant case before us, granting that the defamatory words were used or uttered by the Petitioner, even then there is no such 'making' or 'publication's as to harm the reputation in the sense given to that word in Explanation 4 to Section 499 . There is no proof of any such publication in this case P. Ws. 2 and 3 do not say that the Petitioner uttered the words " bitch" " prostitute "or" a lady who had suffered many abortions".