KOMMAREDDY SURYANARAYANA Vs. KANTHAMANI SRINIVASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the basis of the news item that has been published in 'News Time' 'Eeenadu' 'Andhra Jyothi' 'Udayam' 'Ratna Garbha' and 'Indian Express' the complainant filed a petition under See. 500 IPC alleging that by virtue of that publication the accused has committed the offence of defamation. The defence that has been taken by the respondent is that he is entitled to the benefit of Exception 9 of Sec. 499 IPC and that when it was done in good faith it cannot be said that an offence has been made out under Sec. 500 IPC. When the respondent was examined under Sec. 313 Cr P C he denied the statement that was published in the above cited newspapers. In the complaint the alleged statement said to have been given by the respondent was extracted. There is no consistancy in the statements published in the different newspapers In two News Papers nothing is stated about the complainant taking 'Mudupulu' or 'Lanchalu'. The different Correspondents of the above News papers P Ws 2 to 5 who were examined only stated that they attended the meeting and reported the matter in the paper. As can be seen that in some News papers the words 'Mudupulu' and 'Lanchalu' are published the other News papers do not contain any such words. This shows that the different Correspondents who attended the meeting did not note word to word in Verbatum what the accused had said but that they only drue an inference. Mere production of evidence that a particular item has been published in News papers is not sufficient without further proving that it was made by a particular person and that it intended to damage the reputation of that person. When the accused has denied to have made such a statement and when there is no consistency in the statements published in the different news papers, the lower court was perfectly justified in drawing an inference that the accused is entitled to the benefit of Exception 9 of Sec. 499 IPC. Even if some imputations are made by a person in good faith for the protection of his interest or for public good he is entitled to the benefit of Exception 9 of Sec. 499 IPC and in Criminal cases the burden always lies on the prosecution to prove that his reputation was affected by the act of the accused. As the complinant failed to establish that the words uttered by the accused are the words in verbatium in any paper and as there is no evidence that the paper cuttings relate to particular paper on a particular day the lower Court was perfectly justified in acquitting the accused under Sec. 255 (1) Cr P C for the offence punishable under Sec. 500 IPC. There are no grounds for inter ference and the criminal appeal is dismissed.