1965 (3) TMI 101 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court overturns defamation conviction, cites good faith & public interest. Conviction set aside, fine refunded.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the appellant, Harbhajan Singh, who was convicted under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code for defamation. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Conviction under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (Defamation)2. Application of the Ninth Exception to Section 499 IPC (Good Faith)3. Nature and Extent of Onus of Proof4. Evaluation of Evidence and Good Faith5. Relevance and Admissibility of Additional EvidenceDetailed Analysis:1. Conviction under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (Defamation)The appellant, Harbhajan Singh, challenged his conviction under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for defamation. The criminal proceedings were initiated based on a complaint by Surinder Singh Kairon, alleging that the appellant published a defamatory statement against him in the 'Blitz' magazine. The statement accused Surinder Singh of being involved in smuggling and other crimes, which was claimed to be untrue and defamatory.2. Application of the Ninth Exception to Section 499 IPC (Good Faith)The appellant claimed the protection of the Ninth Exception to Section 499 IPC, asserting that the imputation was made in good faith for the public good. The trial court and the High Court found the appellant's plea of good faith unsubstantiated, leading to his conviction. However, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court misdirected itself in law by requiring the appellant to prove his good faith as strictly as if the complainant were being tried for the offenses imputed to him.3. Nature and Extent of Onus of ProofThe Supreme Court clarified that the burden of proving an exception under Section 105 of the Evidence Act does not require the accused to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the accused must establish a preponderance of probability. The High Court's approach of equating the onus on the appellant with that on the prosecution was erroneous.4. Evaluation of Evidence and Good FaithThe appellant presented evidence, including testimonies and documents, to support his claim of good faith. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the appellant acted with due care and attention. The appellant's statements were made in response to a challenge issued by the Punjab Government, and he had information suggesting the complainant's involvement in smuggling activities. The Court emphasized that the appellant's belief in the allegations had a rational basis and was not merely a blind belief.5. Relevance and Admissibility of Additional EvidenceThe appellant faced difficulties in proving his case as some witnesses were unwilling to testify. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the appellant had called for several documents and witnesses early in the trial, indicating that he had relevant information at the time of making the impugned statement. The Court also noted that the High Court had improperly dismissed the appellant's written statement as an afterthought, despite it containing detailed information supporting his plea.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had succeeded in proving that he acted in good faith and for the public good, thus entitling him to the protection of the Ninth Exception to Section 499 IPC. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order of conviction and sentence was set aside. If the fine imposed on the appellant had been paid, it was ordered to be refunded.