Revealing defamatory allegations made in statement of objections to relatives amounts to "publication" under Section 499 IPC: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court recently held that revealing defamatory allegations against a person to one's relatives is "publication" under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and would thus invite the offence of defamation..This observation was made by Justice HB Prabhakara Sastry in relation to a defamation case filed by a husband against his estranged wife..Factual Background.Due to matrimonial differences, the husband, Nagaraj Rao and wife, Sushma Rani were separated. Eventually, the former sought for restitution of conjugal rights. In her statement of objections, the wife made certain allegations against the husband, including that he was consuming liquor and assaulting her at night. It was also alleged that he used to insist on making her dance naked in the presence of his friends, and that he was acting as a pimp for his friends..However, during the course of the hearing, she was unable to establish the said allegations. The Family Court allowed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights and held that the allegations made by the wife were not established..Based on the judgment of the Family Court, the husband filed a criminal complaint for defamation against the wife before the Magistrate. The Magistrate convicted the wife of defamation, sentencing her to simple imprisonment of 1 month and with a fine amount of Rs. 5,000. .The wife went on to challenge this verdict before the Sessions Court, which rejected the same and upheld the conviction. The amount of fine was also enhanced to Rs 15,000 by the Sessions Court..Aggrieved by this, the wife filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court, seeking to set aside both the orders. In opposition, the husband filed a revision petition seeking an enhancement of the punishment imposed by the Magistrate..What the High Court held.After looking into the facts of the case and the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Court firstly noted that,."In order to be defamatory, a publication must tend to lower the complainant in the opinion of men whose standard of opinion, the Court can properly recognise or tend to induce them to entertain an ill-opinion of him.".The Court observed the estranged wife had shared the defamatory statements with her relatives and his friends. Taking note of this, the Court opined the above would qualify as publication as per Section 499 of IPC.."Therefore, it is clear that apart from filing the statements as per Ex.P-4, in the form of statement of objections, in the matrimonial case, she has also revealed the contents of the same to the relatives and a friend of the complainant, which clearly establishes that there was publication as required under Section 499 of IPC of the alleged defamatory statement by the accused."Karnataka High Court.On the point of whether the statements made by the wife are defamatory, the Court firstly went through the contents of the same. The Court noted the fact that she was not able to prove the veracity of any of these statements before the subordinate courts. .In this regard, the Court opined that the wife had committed the offence of defamation. ."...she has not even attempted to show that they were the imputation of truth or that they were made in good faith. Therefore it can be safely held that the complainant has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed an offence of defamation punishable under Section 499 of IPC, which is punishable under Section 500 of IPC."Karnataka High Court.However, on the point of quantum of sentence, the Court held,"It is the sentencing policy that the sentence ordered should be neither nominal nor exorbitant. It must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt. In assessing the said proportionality, the facts and circumstances of the case and any other circumstances which are peculiar to the case before the Court are all required to be considered.".The Court was prompted to set aside the simple imprisonment taking into consideration the age of her minor daughter. The judgment states,."In such special circumstances of the case, I am of the view that sending the accused to serve imprisonment, however small period it may be, that itself would drastically affect her future as well as that of her daughter.".It thus set aside the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the Court of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, which was later confirmed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge of the Fast Track Court..However, the Court refused to set aside the enhanced fine amount of Rs 15,000 that was ordered to be awarded to the husband..Advocate Ashok Patil appeared for Rao and Advocate Ashish Krupakar appeared for the Rani. Advocate PV Kalpana was appointed as the Amicus Curiae..[Read order here]