Dismissed

Krishna Venkatrman Bhat v. Ganesh Subray Hegde

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2022CRL.A/2740/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the complainant's challenge to his acquittal. The court held that the complainant failed to prove the existence of defamatory content in a telecast due to the inadmissibility of the recording under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal filed by the complainant under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Krishna Venkatrman Bhat Vs Ganesh Subray Hegde — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2740 OF 2013

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KRISHNA VENKATRMAN BHAT A/A 57 YEARS, PHYSICAL TRAINING TEACHER, S.K.P. PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, AREANGADI, TAL-HONNAVAR, R/O KUJALLI, TAL-KUMTA, U.K.DIST.

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. A.P.HEGDE JANMANE , ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

GANESH SUBRAY HEGDE, A/A 49 YEARS, BUSINESS, C/O 'ASHA TILES' JALISATGI COMPOUND HONNAVAR, U.K.DIST.

¶13

ISHWAR GAJANAN HEGDE GUMMATHAKERI

¶14

A/A 59 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/O SALKOD, TAL - HONNAVAR, U.K.DIST

¶15

MANJUNATH GANESH HEDGE KADLE, A/A 60 YEARS,

¶16

BUSINESS,

¶17

¶18

R/O HEBBANAKERI,

¶19

HONNAVAR, U.K.DIST.

¶20

RAMA MAHABALESHWAR HEGDE, A/A 47 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/O KALBHAG KEREKON PO-AREANGADI, TAL-HONNAVAR,

¶21

U.K.DIST

¶22

GANAPATI ADOPTED S/O VINAYAK BHAT A/A 46 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O BOLGERE, KEREKONA,

¶23

PO-AREANGADI,

¶24

TAL-HONNAVAR, U.K.DIST

¶25

NAGRAJ MANJUNATH NAIK A/A 44 YEARS, BUSINESS,

¶26

R/O PO-AREANGADI, TAL-HONNAVAR,

¶27

U.K.DIST

¶28

SURESH GANAPATI NAIK A/A 26 YEARS EMPLOYED,

¶29

R/O KANAKKI, PO-AREANGADI, TAL-HONNAVAR,

¶30

U.K.DIST

¶31

NOTE: CASE WAS DROPPED AGAINST ACCUSED 1, 11, 13 & 14 BEFORE TRIAL COURT. ACCUSED NO.2, 3 & 10 COMPOUNDED THE CASE WITH COMPLAINANT BEFORE TRIAL COURT. HENCE THEY ARE NOT ARRAYED AS PARTIES IN THIS APPEAL.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

¶34

(BY SRI. SRIKANT T PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 & R4; SRI. P.S.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶35

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(4) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.06.2013 PASSED IN C.C.NO.3075/2005 BY 1^ST ADDITIONAL JMFC SIRSI AND CONVICT THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 499, 500 & 502 R/W SEC 149 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶36

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 19.09.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Being aggrieved by dismissal of complaint filed by him under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500 and 502 r/w Section 149 I.P.C, complainant has filed this appeal under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C.

¶39

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

¶40

According to the complainant at the relevant point of time accused No.1 was the Proprietor of Udaya TV and accused No.2 was the Director of crime story division in the said TV. Accused No.3 was the reporter of Udaya TV. Accused Nos.4 to 10 were interested in entering into the

¶41

¶42

Management Committee of SKP Institution. Accused Nos.11 to 14 were the students of the said institution. Accused Nos.4 to 10 with an intention to enter the Board of Management of SKP Institution created rift between the members of the Managing Committee, students and teaching staff.

¶43

3.1 It is further case of the complainant that at the relevant point of time he was working as physical instructor in SKP Composite Pre-University College, having put in 27 years of service. He, another Lecturer by name S.G.Bhat and some other teaching staff were not supporting the illegal attempts made by accused Nos.4 to 10, on account of which they were nursing grudge against them.

¶44

3.2 In this background on 03.09.2004, accused Nos.4

¶45

to 10 with the help of accused Nos.11 to 14 got filed a complaint through Kum.Pushpa, a student of 9th standard alleging that complainant is sexually harassing her by touching her pimples on her face and saying that he would give medicine to cure it and through one Sharath Shetty complainant sent words to her to come to a secluded place. They got the said letter sent to the President of the

¶46

¶47

Managing Committee. With the help of accused Nos.11 to 14, accused Nos.4 to 10 got general public to gather and create galata and summoned the police and press people. In the light of force exerted by the people gathered, though complainant did not commit any mistake, he gave an apology letter.

¶48

3.3 However, on 04.09.2004 the said Kum.Pushpa, her parents and brother wrote a letter to the Management to the effect that on the force exerted by Sharath Shetty and his supporters and without brining to the notice of Kum.Pushpa, her signature was taken to the alleged complaint and nothing of that sort took place and demanded to return the letter to her. In the light of these developments, a press meet was held by the District Unit of Karnataka Primary and Pre-University Employees Association condemning the attempt made by accused Nos.4 to 14 to malign the reputation of complainant.

¶49

3.4 Inspite of these developments on 30.11.2004, accused Nos.1 to 3 telecasted a program captioned 'ªÉÄÃµÀÖçjzÁÝgÉ JZÀÑjPÉ' in their crime story section making defamatory remarks against the complainant. They used vulgar words

¶50

¶51

with an intention to defame the complainant. In the said telecast accused Nos.4 to 14 gave interview. Accused No.6 made false assertion that the management has passed a resolution to remove complainant from service. Accused No.4 stated that complainant is having bad antecedents since long time. Accused No.9 stated that complainant sexually harassed his house maid and managed to close the case by giving money. Accused Nos.5 and 8 have stated that the offence alleged by Kum.Pushpa has taken place. Accused No.14 stated that complainant called Kum.Pushpa to a deserted place under the guise of giving medicines for pimples and also gave threat of failing her in case she fails to meet him. In order to degrade the complainant, accused Nos.4 to 11 hatched a plan.

¶52

3.5 Accused Nos.1 to 3 for their popularity published false report. However, subsequent reports published in the newspaper goes to show that no such incident has taken place. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have not made any efforts to know the truth by recording the statement of Kum.Pushpa and her parents and also other respectable persons of the village. On account of the said telecast, the reputation of the

¶53

¶54

complainant is lowered in the eyes of his relatives, friends and general public and hence the complaint.

¶55

At the stage of sworn statement, complainant got

¶56

dismissed the complaint as against accused Nos.1, 11, 13 and 14.

¶57

After recording sworn statement of the

¶58

complainant and witnesses, the trial Court took cognizance as against accused Nos.2 to 10 and 12 for the offence punishable under Section 500 I.P.C.

¶59

After due service of notice, they have appeared

¶60

through counsel and contested the matter. They have pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

¶61

During the pendency of the proceedings

¶62

complainant has got settled the matter with accused Nos.2, 3 and 10. Therefore, the matter is proceeded as against accused Nos.4 to 9 and 12.

¶63

In order to prove his case, complainant got

¶64

himself examined as PW-1 and two witness as PWs-2 and 3. He relied upon Ex.P1 to 33.

¶65

¶66

During the course of their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused Nos.4 to 9 and 12 have denied the incriminating evidence led on behalf of the complainant.

¶67

They have not led defence evidence, but got marked Ex.D1 - report of Sathya Shodhana Samithi.

¶68

Vide the impugned judgment and order the trial Court has dismissed the complaint on the ground that complainant has failed to prove Ex.P33 CD which is said to be the copy of the telecast of the program, the contents of which are defamatory in nature.

¶69

During the course of arguments learned counsel for complainant submitted that the impugned judgment and order is illegal, contrary to the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. It has acquitted the accused solely on the ground that Ex.P33 is not coming from proper authority and hence, it is inadmissible in evidence and therefore, not sufficient to hold that accused Nos.4, 5, 7 to 9 and 12 gave interviews uttering defamatory words. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that accused Nos.4, 5, 7 to 9 and 12 never disputed the fact of having given

¶70

¶71

interviews in the said telecast and it was accused Nos.2 and 3 who objected for marking Ex.P33, who later compromised with the complainant and thereby admitted the telecast of the said program.

¶72

12.1 The learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of PWs-2 and 3 who supported the case of the complainant. It has also failed to appreciate the documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to 32. The impugned judgment and order is perverse, calling for interference by this Court and prays to allow the appeal.

¶73

On the other hand learned counsel representing accused Nos.4 to 9 and 12 supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the complainant has failed to discharge the burden placed on him and rightly the trial Court has acquitted these accused persons and prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶74

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶75

The undisputed facts are that at the relevant

¶76

point of time complainant was working as physical training

¶77

10 -

¶78

teacher at SKP Pre-University College, Areangadi of Honnavar Taluk. On 03.09.2004, a student by name Kum.Pushpa gave a written complaint alleging that complainant called her to a secluded place under the guise of giving medicine for her pimples and sexually harassed her. She was supported by accused Nos.4 to 12. Complainant has alleged that no such incident has taken place and the said Kum.Pushpa has not given the complaint in question and on the other hand, accused Nos.4 to 14 forced her to give such complaint and in fact subsequently, she has withdrawn the said complaint by giving a letter and her parents and brother also gave letter to the Management demanding return of the complaint in question.

¶79

Complainant has also contended that in fact the Principal and the Management have also addressed letters to the Education Department denying the alleged incident of sexual harassment to said Kum.Pushpa and in this regard statements have been given to the newspaper. Alleging that inspite of all these developments, only to create sensation and popularize their channel, accused Nos.1 to 3 with the help of remaining accused telecasted a false story containing

¶80

11 -

¶81

defamatory material and in the said telecast accused Nos.4 to 9 and 12 gave interviews making defamatory allegations against the complainant.

¶82

In order to prove that a program was telecasted making defamatory allegations against complainant, he has relied upon Ex.P33, copy of the said telecast. Admittedly, it is not coming with a certificate as required under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. The person who has copied the same is also not examined. In the absence of the same, rightly the trial Court has rejected Ex.P33. While marking the said document, accused Nos.2 and 3 have objected and it is marked subject to their objection. It may be true that subsequently, accused Nos.2 and 3 have compromised with the complainant by tendering apology to him for having telecasted the program in question. However, fact remains that Ex.P33 is not proved in accordance with law. The admission of accused Nos.2 and 3 that they have telecasted the program in question would not absolve the complainant of his responsibility of proving that during the said telecast, accused Nos.4 to 9 and 12 have given interview making defamatory allegations against the complainant.

¶83

12 -

¶84

Even though complainant has produced letters at Ex.P1 said to have been written by Kum.Pushpa and her family members that no such incident has taken place and that Kum.Pushpa signed the complaint without knowing its contents, in the light of accused persons having disputed the same, it was obligatory on the part of complainant to examine the said Kum.Pushpa and her family members who are alleged authors of Ex.P1. From the manner in which the Principal and members of the Committee have changed their version and written letters to the Education Department goes to show that they are swayed and persuaded by the complainant. In fact Ex.D1 which is the report of the Sathya Shodhana Samithi goes to show that they have conducted a detailed enquiry summoning Kum.Pushpa, her family members and others and found that incident as alleged has taken place and in fact the complainant has admitted of having suggested medicine to the pimples suffered by Kum.Pushpa, but did not sexually harassed her as alleged. As pleaded by the complainant and also supported by the report at Ex.D1 on 03.09.2004, complainant has given a letter of apology and has also sought voluntary retirement. Considering all these aspects, the trial Court has rightly held

¶85

13 -

¶86

that complainant has failed to prove the allegations against accused Nos.4 to 9 and 12 and acquitted them. I find no reason to interfere with the same.

¶87

Thus, from the above discussions, I hold that the

¶88

appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly I proceed to pass the following:

¶89

ORDER

¶90

i) The appeal filed by the complainant under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed.

¶91

ii) Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court Records along with copy of this judgment.

¶92

iii) In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

¶93

SD/JUDGE

¶94

Krishna Venkatrman Bhat v. Ganesh Subray Hegde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Venkatrman Bhat v. Ganesh Subray Hegde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri E Mani Vs Sri Jude Devadas

Sri. K. N. Muniswamy Vs Sri. H. Gopalkrishna

Sri K Darshan Kumar Chavan Vs Smt Anjali Jadwani

Smt B Saraswathi Vs Smt Vasanthi

The State of Karnataka Vs Kenchappa Rayappa Yettingud

Sri. Srinivas M Sanidhi Vs Sri. M Anand Kumar