- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47544 RSA No. 1688 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1688 OF 2019 BETWEEN: MR SUDESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEAS EDITOR, PRINTER, PUBLSIER & OWNER OF 'KARAVALI MARUTHA' KANNADA WEEKLY MAGAZINE II FLOOR, GANESH MAHAL COMPLEX K.S RAO ROAD, MANGALORE-575 001 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR RAHIM UCHIL (ALIAS ABDUL RAHIM) S/O LATE K ABDULLA AGED 44 YEARS R/AT A-102, CASA GRANDE ATTAVAR, MANGALURU-575 001 2. MR ISMAIL MOODUSHEDDE S/O LATE ABDUL HAMEED AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS SALPADAVU, MOODUSHEDDE VAMANJOOR, MANGALURU-575 005 …RESPONDENTS (BY NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 04.11.2024 R2-SERVED, UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47544 RSA No. 1688 of 2019 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.07.2019 PASSED IN RA NO 130/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MANGALURU DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.06.2016 PASSED IN OS NO 31/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANGALURU.D.K. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT Defendant No.1 has filed this regular second appeal. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for damages for defamation and permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants. The plaintiff contended that he is a respectable and responsible citizen of India and he has a popular personality at D.K., Mangaluru. 3. Defendant No.1 is the publisher of 'Karavali Marutha' having a wide circulation in various parts of the undivided Dakshina Kannada District. Defendant No.2 is an editor, publisher and owner of a magazine namely 'Lati Charge' which was stopped due to Government restrictions. Defendant No.2 had worked with the plaintiff - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47544 RSA No. 1688 of 2019 in making tele film. At that time, he developed jealousy and envy against the plaintiff due to the popularity and success of the plaintiff. It is further stated that the defendants who are friends, have colluded each other and hatched conspiracy to commit defamation to the plaintiff. Accordingly, on 17.12.2010, in the front page of a magazine run by defendant No.1 'Karavali Marutha' as stated supra, published a defamatory article and the same is read by several people and hence the name and fame of the plaintiff is defamed. Accordingly, he filed the suit for seeking compensation for damages and prohibitory injunction. 4. After service of the suit summons to the defendants, the defendants appeared through their respective advocates and the defendants have filed the written statement by denying the allegation made in the suit that at no point of time defendants have published articles with an ulterior motive to defame the image of the plaintiff. According to defendant No.1, being a media - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47544 RSA No. 1688 of 2019 person has fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution of India as exercised his right. 5. The Trial Court after considering the rival pleadings, framed the relevant issues and on assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court partly decreed the suit with cost and directed defendant Nos.1 and 2 to jointly pay the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of suit till the actual payment towards the damages to the plaintiff. 6. On appeal, the First Appellate Court upon reassessment of the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the appeal filed by defendant No.1 by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Challenging the same, defendant No.1 has filed this appeal before this Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel Sri.Rajashekar S., for the appellant. However, though notice served to the respondents, they remained unrepresented. 8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Trial Court and the First - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47544 RSA No. 1688 of 2019 Appellate Court totally erred while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and awarding the compensation to him without appreciating the evidence in the right perspective. He contended that the bare reading of the news item which relied by the plaintiff, discloses that there is no such defamatory imputation published against the defendants which lowered the image of the plaintiff in the eye of public. 9. He further contended that, in the cross- examination of the plaintiff-PW.1, he has categorically admitted that even after the publication, his image has not been lowered in the eye of law. Additionally, he failed to examine any witness on his behalf to prove that damage of his reputation was ill-effected or lowered due to the imputation made. He also contended that the Trial Court has erred in framing issue No.1: By casting burden on the defendants to prove that the statements or news items published by him in respect of the plaintiff are all true and non-defamatory statements instead casting said burden on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47544 RSA No. 1688 of 2019 the plaintiff. With these submissions, he prays to allow the appeal. 10. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and so also documents placed before this Court. Thus the substantial question of law that arises for my consideration is, "Whether the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are justified in decreeing the suit and granting compensation to the plaintiff without properly appreciating the explanation- 4 to Section 499 of IPC ?" 11. As could be gathered from the records, it is not in dispute that the defendant No.1 has published the articles in the newspaper "Karavali Marutha" dated 17.12.2010 under the heading "©.¹. gÉÆÃr£À CPÀÌvÀAVAiÀÄgÀ£ÀÄß ®UÁr vÉUÉzÀzÁågÀÄ?" and "©.¹. gÉÆÃr£À ¹ªÀiÁæ£ï-PÁd¯ïgÉA§ CPÀÌvÀAVAiÀÄgÀ£ÀÄß ®UÁr EUÉzÀzÁågÀÄ?" and in the last page of said magazine a detailed article is also published. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47544 RSA No. 1688 of 2019 12. According to the plaintiff, the said articles tarnished his reputation and dignity by putting him under tremendous mental agony and torture. To prove the said aspect, he placed documents i.e., the publication and other documents as per Exs.P1 to P6. He contended that, he is vice president of Bharathiya Janatha Party minority wing at Mangalore, South Canara, D.K District and the publication lowered his reputation in the eye of the public. Though the defendants contended that the publication was in no way effected the image of the plaintiff and the same comes under freedom of speech and expression as envisaged under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, I am not impressed in the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant for the simple reason that the publishing of the articles which causes the moral and intellectual character of any person cannot be saved on the freedom and expression envisaged under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47544 RSA No. 1688 of 2019 13. The explanation-4 to Section 499 of IPC reads as under: "499. Defamation: Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person. Explanation 4: No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful." - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47544 RSA No. 1688 of 2019 14. As could be gathered from the above provision, to attract the offence of defamation there must be publication of imputation intending to harm reputation of the person who felt defamed. Hence, the plaintiff must prove that in estimation of others his moral or intellectual character is lowered down as a result of such false imputation. Further, to prove the said aspect it is the duty cast on the plaintiff to lead all necessary evidence before whom his image is ill-effected and lowered. 15. In the case on hand though the PW.1-plaintiff has contended that his image was lowered due to the imputation, in the cross-examination he categorically admitted that even after the said publication, he continued with his original status in the society and his image has not lowered in the eye of public. Nevertheless, the plaintiff is not examined any witness to prove that his image was lowered in the public. Such being the position, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have not dealt on the said aspect. Mere publication of the defamatory article - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47544 RSA No. 1688 of 2019 does not amounts to defamatory on its face value unless the said imputation defamed the moral and intellectual character of the plaintiff, though the defendant has failed to justify the publication are true. 16. In such circumstances, there is no application of Section 499 of IPC, in the case on hand. Since the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court failed to consider the said aspect, I am of the considered view that, both the Courts are erred by decreeing the suit against the defendants. In view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial question of law in the negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.130/2016 dated 25.07.2019 and judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.31/2011 dated 17.06.2016 are - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47544 RSA No. 1688 of 2019 hereby set-aside. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE GPG/CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37