- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14733 CRL.RP No. 1081 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1081 OF 2017 BETWEEN: SMT. SHASHIKALA THYAGARAJ W/O THYAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, EDITOR, PUBLISHER ABHARAN SUDDI RESIDING AT NO.121, 1ST FLOOR, 5TH MAIN, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALORE, PIN CODE-560 018. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJU C.N, ADVOCATE) AND: K.R VEEREGOWDA S/O K.V RAMEGOWDA RESIDING AT KOOTAGAL VILLAGE KOOTAGAL HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.V. BHADRINATH, ADVOCATE - ABSENT) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, RAMANAGARA IN C.C.NO.927/2005 DATED 09.11.2011 AND IN CRL.A.NO.55/2011 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA DATED 28.09.2017 AND ACQUITTED THE PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION. Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14733 CRL.RP No. 1081 of 2017 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order passed in Crl.A.No.55/2011 dated 28.09.2017 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Sessions Judge') whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara (for short 'the trial Court') in C.C.No.927/2005 dated 09.11.2011. 2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. Abridged facts of the prosecution case are that: The respondent-complainant is a practicing advocate and also working as a Special Public Prosecutor has lodged the private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 499 of IPC alleging that he got married one Veena in the year 1999 and they lived together for - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14733 CRL.RP No. 1081 of 2017 some time. There was failure in their matrimonial relationship due to various circumstances. Thereafter, out of their strained marital relationship, both of them have filed different cases before various Courts. Things stood thus, the accused/revision petitioner being the proprietor, editor and publisher of Fortnightly Kannada edition called as Abarana Suddi, has published an article under the caption "Vakila Veeregowda Dourjanya, Veenala Aranya Rodhana, Polisara Nirlakshya" on 05.05.2002. In the said article, she made reckless and baseless allegations against the complainant by stating that the complainant is an impotent and he contracted marriage with another girl. As such, the complainant registered the private complaint against the accused. 4. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and secured the presence of the accused and framed the charges against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 499 of IPC. 5. In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused before the trial Court, the complainant got examined himself as PW.1 and the prosecution examined three other - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14733 CRL.RP No. 1081 of 2017 witnesses as PW.2 to PW.4 so also got marked 6 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. However, the accused got examined herself as DW.1 and also examined one more witness as DW.2 and got marked 4 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D4. 6. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 499 of IPC and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and she shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, the accused filed a criminal appeal before the learned Session Judge in Crl.A.No.55/2011. However, the complainant also challenged the said judgment of conviction and the order of sentence before the learned Session Judge in Crl.A.No.4/2012 for enhancement of the sentence imposed by the trial Court. 7. On reassessing of the entire evidence and the documents on record, learned Session Judge, dismissed both the appeals and thereby confirmed the judgment of conviction - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14733 CRL.RP No. 1081 of 2017 and the order of sentence passed by the trial Court. The accused has challenged the same in this revision petition. 8. Heard the learned counsel, Sri Raju C.N., for the revision petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent remained absent, despite granting sufficient opportunities. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court that the complainant is no more, to that effect, the death certificate of the complainant/respondent is placed on record. 9. I have given my anxious consideration on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner so also carefully perused the entire materials on record placed before me. 10. On careful perusal of the evidence, to the charges levelled against the accused, the complainant examined four witnesses as PW.1 to PW.4 and marked 6 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. The evidence of PW.1 to PW.4, depicts that the accused published scandals imputations in her newspaper called "Abharana Suddi" as per Exs.P2 and P3 on 05.05.2002 and on 20.06.2002 respectively. On perusal of these two articles, the accused has made reckless and baseless - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14733 CRL.RP No. 1081 of 2017 allegations against the complainant. According to PW.1, due to the same, his image and reputation tarnished and defamed both in his family and also in the Bar Association, where he was practicing as an advocate. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 are consistent. Further PW.3 the Professor of MIMS Hospital, Mandya submitted a report-Ex.P5 that the complainant-PW.1 is not impotent. Further PW.4 also deposed about the articles published in the newspaper which circulated in the library of Village Panchayat at Ramanagara. Though the accused examined herself as DW.1, one more witness as DW.2 and marked 4 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D4, the same do not establish that the publication made by the accused is true or in good faith. 11. It could be gathered from the records that after obtaining the decree of divorce from the competent Authority, both the accused and his wife were contracted the second marriage and they are residing along with their spouses happily. As such, the allegation made by the accused in the newspaper definitely lowered the image of the complainant. In such circumstances, both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court rightly appreciated the entire evidence on record and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14733 CRL.RP No. 1081 of 2017 convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 499 of IPC. 12. The sentence imposed by the trial Court for the aforementioned offence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also fine of Rs.5,000/-, though the offence under Section 499 of IPC is punishable either by imprisonment for a period of 2 years or by imposing fine or both. 13. On perusal of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case so also considering that aspects that presently the complainant/respondent is no more and the alleged offence committed in the year 2005, ever since then, the accused is on bail and there is no such other bad antecedents forthcoming against the accused and considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the accused is aged about 60 years and she is suffering from age old elements, I am of the considered view that imposing reasonable fine amount instead of sentencing the accused to imprisonment for the aforementioned offence would meet the ends of justice. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14733 CRL.RP No. 1081 of 2017 14. In that view of the matter, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The revision petition filed by the revision petitioner is allowed-in-part. ii) The sentence imposed by the trial Court in C.C.No.927/2005 dated 09.11.2011 which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.55/2011 dated 28.09.2017 for the offence punishable under Section 499 of IPC is hereby modified and the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 499 of IPC which is punishable under Section 500 of IPC. iii) The revision petitioner/accused shall deposit the fine amount before the trial Court within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. iv) If the accused fail to deposit the fine amount within four weeks and fail to surrender before the Trial Court, the learned Magistrate is directed to secure her presence and commit her to prison to undergo the default sentence. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14733 CRL.RP No. 1081 of 2017 v) If the fine amount is deposited by the accused, the learned Magistrate is directed to notify the same to legal heirs of the complainant i.e., wife or children and disburse the same to any one of them on proper identification as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. vi) The bail bonds executed by the accused/revision petitioner shall stand cancelled. vii) Registry is directed to return back the Trial Court records along with a copy of this order to the concerned Court forthwith. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20