ANALYSIS OF A DEFAMATION JUDGMENT: SCOPE OF SPECIAL LEAVE AND APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
INTRODUCTION
The High Court of Bombay passed a judgement on 19 April 2023. In the case of UTTAM MANULAL KALE Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR IN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (PVT.) NO. 30 OF 2018 which was passed by a single bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S. M. MODAK, the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 61st Court, Kurla, Mumbai acquitted Sudhakar Suradkar for an offense punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The original complainant, represented by Advocate Prashant Gurav, seeks to challenge the correctness of the judgment. This blog aims to analyse the judgment and the arguments presented by both parties.
FACTS
The applicant, represented by Advocate Shri. Prashant Gurav, seeks Special Leave to challenge the acquittal of Respondent No. 2, Sudhakar Suradkar, for the offense of defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The court’s inquiry at this stage focuses on whether there is a manifest error in the trial court’s findings and if the principles of evidence appreciation were disregarded or neglected. The complainant alleges that during a meeting regarding the malfunctioning of lifts in a building owned by a cooperative housing society, Respondent No. 2 made defamatory allegations against the complainant, accusing corruption in the lift maintenance contract. The trial court acquitted the respondent, citing inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses, lack of independent witnesses, and absence of publication of the defamatory statements. The applicant argues that it is not necessary to reproduce the exact words spoken but rather to establish the defamatory nature of the allegations. The applicant relies on relevant judgments supporting this interpretation. The court reviewed the oral and documentary evidence presented, including minutes of the meeting and a transcription of the discussion. After considering the evidence, the court finds that there are sufficient grounds to infer defamatory allegations made by Respondent No. 2. Therefore, the court grants Special Leave to challenge the acquittal and proceed with further inquiry based on the available evidence
SCOPE OF SPECIAL LEAVE
The law regarding the grant of Special Leave is well settled. While the scope of an enquiry for Special Leave differs from that of a final appeal, it is important to assess whether there is a manifest error in the trial court’s findings. The court must determine if there was a total disregard for the principles of evidence appreciation and whether any neglected or omitted evidence could affect the outcome. In this case, the Court will review the trial court’s judgment based on these principles.
DEFAMATION ALLEGATIONS AND EVIDENCE
The complainant alleges that during a special general meeting held on April 15, 2012, Sudhakar Suradkar made defamatory statements about him concerning corruption in the lift maintenance contract. The complainant argues that it is not necessary to mention every word uttered by the accused but rather to establish whether the words imply defamatory allegations. The complainant relies on two judgments, namely Balraj Khanna and others v. Moti Ram (AIR 1971 SUPREME COURT 1389) and Pyarelal Maganlal Jaiswal v. State of Maharashtra and others (1996 CRI. L. J. 989), to support this contention.
In Balraj Khanna, the court held that it would be impractical to insist on verbatim reproduction of lengthy statements, and the objective is to ascertain whether the words or statements are defamatory in nature. The same principle was reiterated in the Pyarelal case, where the acquittal was set aside based on defamatory allegations made against the complainant.
However, the trial court in the present case acquitted the respondent based on several reasons. It noted inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses and the minutes of the meeting, stating that the minutes were not written by an independent person as required. Additionally, it highlighted discrepancies between the verbal script and the note-sheet prepared by the magistrate, the absence of publication of the defamatory allegations, lack of an independent witness, and the absence of a resolution authorizing the complaint. The trial court deemed the evidence untrustworthy and not believable.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Upon reviewing the evidence and arguments presented, it is crucial to recognize the limited scope of the current enquiry for Special Leave. At this stage, the Court must determine whether there is a manifest error in the trial court’s findings. While there is oral evidence supporting the complainant’s claim, including the testimonies of witnesses and a transcription of the meeting, there are inconsistencies in the evidence and discrepancies in the minutes and note-sheet.
It is essential to note that the complainant’s burden is to establish that the utterances can be considered defamatory in nature. The court will carefully examine the evidence and determine if the trial court’s acquittal was erroneous or if there was a disregard for the principles of evidence appreciation.
In conclusion, the decision on whether to grant Special Leave or not will depend on whether the Court finds a manifest error in the trial court’s judgment, such as a disregard for the principles of evidence appreciation or neglecting relevant evidence. The final decision will be based on a deeper inquiry into the available evidence when the appeal is heard after admission.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW