Karnataka High Court
Kotrayya S/O Channabasayya Soppinmath vs Shivayogi S/O Gangadharappa Humbi on 6 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7437
CRL.A No. 100025 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100025 OF 2017 (A)
BETWEEN:
KOTRAYYA S/O. CHANNABASAYYA SOPPINMATH,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. BYADAGI-581106, DIST. HAVERI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHIVAYOGI S/O. GANGADHARAPPA HUMBI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. BYADAGI-581106, DIST. HAVERI.
2. MALLIKARJUN S/O. MALLAPPA TOTAGANTI,
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC. EDITOR, PRINTER AND OWNER,
Digitally
ARJUN WEEKLY, R/O. C/O. VENKAPPA KEMPANAHALLI,
signed by
YASHAVANT
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
NARAYANKAR Date:
ATTUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBALI-560064,
2025.06.12
10:21:32
+0530 BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.P. VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
APPEAL AGAINST R2 IS ABATED (V/O DATED 20.03.2025)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4)
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BYADGI IN CRIMINAL CASE
NO. 371 OF 2007 AND CONSEQUENTLY CONVICT THE
RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
499, 500, 501 AND 502 READ WITH 34 OF IPC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7437
CRL.A No. 100025 of 2017
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, JUDGMENT WAS
DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
This appeal is directed against the judgment passed in CC
No.371/2007, dated 08.11.2016 by the learned JMFC, Byadgi1,
whereby, the learned Magistrate acquitted the
accused/respondents for the offences punishable under
Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rankings before the learned Magistrate.
The appellant is the complainant and respondents are accused.
3. The abridged facts of the case are that, the
complainant is a resident of Byadgi ever since 1994 and he was
engaged in the wholesale chilly business at APMC Yard, Byadgi
in the name and style of "K C Soppinamath". When things
stood thus, accused No.1 i.e. respondent No.1, who claimed to
be a Reporter of 'Arjuna Patrike' weekly newspaper, which was
Hereinafter referred to as 'learned Magistrate'
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7437
HC-KAR
run by accused No.2/respondent No.2, published an article in
the said newspaper on 25.07.2007 defaming the reputation of
the complainant by making allegation that the appellant is
indulged in manufacture and circulation of counterfeit currency
notes and due to the same, he became rich. The said
newspaper was circulated throughout Bengaluru, the family
members and well-wishers of the complainant have read the
said article in the newspaper, thereby imputation caused harm
to the reputation of the complainant. In that view of the
matter, the complainant/appellant filed a private complaint
against accused Nos.1 and 2 before the learned Magistrate for
the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502
read with Section 34 of IPC.
4. Post cognizance of the aforesaid offences, to prove
the case against the accused before the learned Magistrate, the
complainant examined in total 4 witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and
got marked 12 documents as Ex.P1 to P12.
5. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence,
the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused Nos.1 and 2 for
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7437
HC-KAR
the charges leveled against them in the impugned judgment.
Aggrieved by the same, the complainant preferred this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Mallikarjunswamy S
Hiremath for the appellant, learned counsel Sri. N.P.
Vivekmehta for respondent No.1.
7. Besides urging several contentions, learned counsel
for the appellant/complainant submitted that on the face of
allegation stipulated in the private complaint and deposition of
the evidence, the complainant has clearly made out a case
against the accused for the offences they charged. According to
him, due to the imputation, caused harm to the reputation of
the complainant in the estimation of the others. As such,
offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 read
with Section 34 of IPC are complied with. He also contended
that the evidence of PW1 to PW4, i.e., the complainant and
other three witnesses are consistently deposed that due to the
imputation made by the accused, the reputation of the
complainant lowered in public image. It is also proved by the
complainant that accused No.1 being a Reporter of the said
weekly Newspaper and accused No.2-Publisher and Editor, have
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7437
HC-KAR
published the alleged article intentionally to defame the
complainant and the said newspaper circulated in many places
of Bengaluru. In such circumstance, the learned Magistrate
failed to appreciate the evidence of these witnesses in right
perspective, which resulted in miscarriage of justice.
Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal and to convict
accused No.1 for the charges leveled against him.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1/accused No.1 by supporting the impugned judgment,
inter-alia, contended that the learned Magistrate after
meticulously examining the entire evidence on record has
passed a well-reasoned judgment, which does not call for any
interference at the hands of this Court. He further contended
that, primarily the complainant failed to place material evidence
to establish that accused No.1 was a Reporter of the said
newspaper and the imputation made by him against the
accused. According to the learned counsel, PW1 to PW4-the
material witnesses have categorically admitted in their cross-
examination that on suspicion, they filed complaint against
accused No.1 that he was a Reporter of the said newspaper in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7437
HC-KAR
which the imputation made. Learned counsel also contended
that, in addition to filing the instant private complaint, the
complainant's brother also filed a private complaint against
these accused No.1 and 2, which came to be withdrawn by him
for the reasons best known to him. In such circumstance, it
could be gathered that private complaint was filed with an
ulterior motive and due to business rivalry with the accused.
Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties, so also on perusal of the evidence and the documents
placed before me, the sole point that would arise for my
consideration in this appeal is:
"Whether the Trial Court is justified in
acquitting the accused for the offences
punishable under sections 499, 500, 501 and
502 read with Section 34 of IPC by dismissing
the private complaint?"
10. Before delving into the merits of the case, it is
appropriate to discuss the provision as stipulated in
Explanation-IV to Section 499 of IPC, which reads as under:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7437
HC-KAR
"Section 499 of IPC : Whoever by words
either spoken or intended to be read, or by
signs or by visible representations, makes or
publishes any imputation concerning any
person intending to harm, or knowing or
having reason to believe that such imputation
will harm, the reputation of such person, is
said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted,
to defame that person.
Explanations:
(1) xxxxx
(2) xxxxx
(3) xxxxx
(4) No imputation is said to harm a person's
reputation, unless that imputation directly
or indirectly, in the estimation of others,
lowers the moral or intellectual character
of that person, or lowers the character of
that person in respect of his caste or of his
calling, or lowers the credit of that person,
or causes it to be believed that the body of
that person is in a loathsome state, or in a
state generally considered as disgraceful.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7437
HC-KAR
11. On plain reading of the above provision, to attract
offence of defamation, there must be a public imputation
intending to harm reputation of a person, directly or indirectly,
who felt defamed. The person involved in such imputation must
prove that on account of such defamatory publication, his moral
or intellectual character is lowered in others estimation and the
duty is casted on the complainant to prove the said aspect. In
the instant case, though the complainant has examined himself
as PW1 and examined three other witnesses i.e. PW2 to PW4
on his behalf, none of these witnesses have stated that after
reading the imputation, the image of complainant lowered in
their estimation.
12. Be that as it may, coming to the evidence of PW1,
at the outset, he failed to place sufficient material to prove that
the accused No.1 was the reporter of alleged defamatory article
published in 'Arjuna Patrike' newspaper. It is vehemently
contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that,
Ex.P7 is the subsequent newspaper published in the month of
October-2007 wherein it reveals that accused No.1 was a
reporter in the said newspaper and subsequently, he left the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7437
HC-KAR
said assignment, but Ex.P7 is published in the month of
October, 2007 i.e., after lapse of several months from the date
of imputation. In such circumstances, it could not be gathered
that the accused No.1 was the reporter of the article in the said
newspaper. Nevertheless, on perusal of the cross-examination
of PW1, it reveals that his brother had also filed a private
complaint against the accused for the same offence.
Subsequently, he withdrew the said complaint. It is also elicited
in the cross-examination of PW1 that, there is a business
rivalry between the complainant and the accused. In such
circumstances, I am of the considered view that the
complainant has failed to prove the charges leveled against the
accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
13. This being the appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble
Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that the Appellate
Court shall not interfere with the acquittal judgments if the
view taken by the Trial Court is a plausible view. In the instant
case, the view taken by the Magistrate is a plausible view and I
find no good grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7437
HC-KAR
In that view of the matter, I answer the point raised above in
the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal, being devoid of merits, stands
dismissed.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
JTR, YAN
CT:PA
