High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Kamlesh Rani wife of Dharampal, resident v. Devender Singh Takkar, Editor and Owner, - CRM-A-30-MA-2006  RD-P&H 898 (25 January 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.30-MA of 2006
Date of Decision: November 27, 2006
Kamlesh Rani wife of Dharampal, resident of Kirti Nagar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa
Devender Singh Takkar, Editor and Owner, Punjabi Newspaper 'Lokan Dee Soch', resident of Kirti Nagar, Sirsa.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K S GAREWAL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R S MADAN
PRESENT: Mr. PS Sullar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
R S MADAN, J.
By this order we propose to dispose of Criminal Misc.No.30-MA of 2006, which has arisen out of the judgment dated 26-09-2005 rendered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa in a criminal complaint case No.685 of 1997/2004 whereby he dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant under Sections 499, 500, 501, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted the accused of the charge framed against him.
In brief, the facts of the present complaint are that respondent-Devender Singh Takkar is owner and Editor of Punjbi Newspaper 'Lokan Dee Soch' and is resident of Sirsa. He resides in front of Crl.Misc.No.30-MA of 2006 2
the house of the complainant. It is alleged in the complaint that respondent is a quarrelsome person and keeps on harassing the complainant and her family members. It was on 19-11-1997, the said accused with intention to defame the complainant got published a news item in daily newspaper 'Rama Times' under the title 'Takkar se Takkar' wherein the complainant was referred to as a prostitute. It was mentioned therein in the said news item that husband of the complainant as well as one Tara Singh caused injuries to him. These allegations were baseless and the accused has defamed the complainant by calling her a prostitute. On 20-11-1997, the abovesaid news item was also published in 'Dainik Punjab Kesri'. Similarly, in some other newspapers, said news item was also published. Thus, the accused by calling the complainant as prostitute has tried to defame her, for which, the complainant filed the present complaint under Sections 499, 500, 501, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code.
In preliminary evidence, the complainant herself appeared in the witness box as PW1 and examined Dara Singh as PW2; Bhim Sain as PW3 and Raj Kapur as PW4.
After going through the preliminary evidence, the respondent was summoned to face trial under Sections 499, 500, 501, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sirsa vide order dated 21-3-2001.
On appearance of the accused before the Court, he was served with a notice under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 13-3-2002 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
After appearance of the accused, the complainant examined herself as PW1; Raj Kumar as PW2; Bhim Sain as PW3 and Dara Crl.Misc.No.30-MA of 2006 3
Singh as PW4 and, thereafter, the evidence of the complainant was closed by the order of the Court.
After the evidence of the complainant was closed, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which the entire incriminating evidence was put to him, to which he denied and pleaded his false implication.
No evidence was led in defence by the accused.
After going through the evidence led by the complainant, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa was of the view that the testimony of PW1-Kamlesh Rani does not inspire confidence because respondent-Devender Singh Takkar has nothing to do with the Newspaper 'Rama Times'. It was the Chief Editor of 'Rama Times', who had informed her that the news was published at the instance of Devender Singh- respondent but no writing in this regard was available with the Chief Editor of 'Rama Times'. PW2-Raj Kumar Bhardwaj is the Chief Editor of 'Rama Times', who stated that one RK Sehti correspondent was informed by the respondent-accused that Kamlesh Rani is leading the life of prostitute but said RK Sethi was never examined to connect the respondent-accused with the commission of crime. Bhim Sain, who appeared as PW3 simply stated that he has read the news in 'Rama Times' at page no.4 on 19-11-1997.
PW4-Dara Singh has, however, tried to corroborate the testimony of his mother Kamlesh Rani but was unable to connect the accused-Devender Singh with the commission of crime.
The learned Magistrate was of the view that it cannot be said that in whose instance the news item was published in 'Rama Times'.
The star witness in this complaint was RK Sethi, who has been withheld by Crl.Misc.No.30-MA of 2006 4
the complainant despite availing so many last opportunities. The learned trial court took the view that when there is no affidavit or writing on behalf of the accused for publishing the news item, mere on the bases of presumptions and conjectures accused can not be convicted, therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not find favour with the prosecution version and acquitted the accused of the charge framed against him.
Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to convince us as to how the accused is connected with the publication of the news item in 'Rama Times' on 19-11-1997 where complainant-Kamlesh Rani has been prescribed as prostitute.
In this view of the matter, there is no force in this Criminal Misc. Appeal. Hence, leave to appeal is declined.
( R S MADAN )
( K S GAREWAL )
November 27, 2006 JUDGE
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.