CASE TITLE:
BA Harish Gowda Vs Ravi Kumar
DATE OF ORDER:
31TH MAY,2022
JUDGE(S):
HON’BLE JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
PARTIES:
PETITIONER:B.A. HARISH GOWDA
RESPONDENT: RAVI KUMAR
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code
SUBJECT
The Karnataka High Court has suggested that the Central Government amend Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code to allow victims to approach the Court in an appeal seeking an enhancement of the sentence imposed on a convict.
BRIEF FACTS
- On the basis of a complaint filed by Gowda against the accused in the year 2000, the accused was found guilty by the trial court on 30.08.2017, the Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him for a period of 6 months for the offence under Section 500 of the IPC and imposed a fine of Rs.25,000. Following that, both the complainant and the accused filed an appeal. In his appeal, the complainant sought an order to increase the sentence, while the accused challenged the Trial Court's conviction and sentence.
- The Appellate Court dismissed the accused's appeal and allowed the complainant's appeal, but modified the sentence, increasing the imprisonment to 9 months with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. The accused and the complainant both file these three revision petitions because they are unhappy with the sentence modification order.
- The accused was said to have made false imputations in the journal, and the document on record reveals that it is defamatory per se, which fact has not been refuted by the accused in these petitions or on previous occasions before the Trial Court, the Appellate Court, or this Court.
- The accused's false and concocted imputations directed against the complainant are not only defamatory, but also intended to have a deep impact on the minds of the reader, and words will not suffice to describe the complainant's mental agony, humiliation, and physical hardship over the past 20 years. The nature of the false imputations replicated in the complaint is sufficient to prove that the punishment imposed upon the accused to convict is insufficient.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- Despite dismissing the complainant's petition for sentence enhancement, the court upheld the trial court's decision to sentence the accused to six months in prison under Section 500 of the IPC. "Though defence was taken in cross-examination that the said article was published in good faith and for the benefit of the public good, no material is placed before the Court to substantiate the same," the court said.
- "It is also important to note that the complainant has fought before the Court almost for the last two decades to prove that his reputation has been ruined as a result of the defamatory per-se allegations made against him, and these aspects are also considered by both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court," the court said.
CONCLUSION
- As a result, the court dismissed the complaint's appeal, which sought an increase in the sentence from six to nine months, and quashed and set aside the appellate court's order, which increased the sentence from six to nine months. The bench also upheld the trial court's decision to convict the accused and sentence him to 6 months in prison and a Rs.10,000 fine.
- Furthermore, it directed the Registry to forward this copy of the judgement to the Ministry of Justice for examination and action, as noted in the judgement while answering points I and (ii) regarding an anomaly in the statute to set right of appeal to the victim for necessary amendment to provide right of appeal to the victim for enhancement of sentence.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
