Miss Violet Wapshare vs Miss Maureen Froud

Somasundaram, J.—Miss Maureen Froud, the Respondent herein, complained to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gudalur, that Miss Violet Wapshare, the Petitioner, defamed her in the dining room at " Rosemount " in Ootacamund on the 31st of March, 1967 by describing her as a lady who had suffered many abortions and by using the words " bitch " and prostitute " in the presence of some persons including P. Ws. 2 and 3. On this complaint, process was issued. The complainant, as P.W. 1, deposed to her case and stated that the Petitioner used the defamatory words. P.W. 2, who is a cook did not say that he heard any such words. Similarly was the evidence given by P.W. 3. Observing that the words used were defamatory in character, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate convicted and sentenced the Petitioner u/s 499 read with Section 500, I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 300 is default to Section 1. for one month. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, confirmed the conviction, but reduced the sentence of fine to Rs. 100.

The correctness of this conviction is now canvassed in revision.

Mere communication of defamatory matter merely to the person defamed is not publication within the meaning of Section 499, I.P.C. In other words, the defamatory matter must be published, that is communicated, to some person other than the person concerned to whom it is addressed. The word "publish" in Section 499, I.P.C. is used in its etymological sense as connoting " to make public " or "to make known to people in general". Since "publication "Implies communication to the public or the people, it follows that it is not publication if the libeler merely communicates his libel to the person defamed. Such communications may amount to an insult and be punishable as such, but it is net publication for which he could be held liable u/s 499, I.P.C. Further, publication to constitute defamation should be made with the intention to defame some person. Explanation 4 to Section 499 states:

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 loath some state, or In state generally considered as disgraceful.

The word " harm " used here relates to imputations on a man''s character made and expressed to others; so as to lower him in their estimation and anything which lowers him merely in his own estimation certainly does not constitute defamation. In the instant case before us, granting that the defamatory words were used or uttered by the Petitioner, even then there is no such ''making'' or ''publication''s as to harm the reputation in the sense given to that word in Explanation 4 to Section 499 . There is no proof of any such publication in this case P. Ws. 2 and 3 do not say that the Petitioner uttered the words " bitch" " prostitute "or" a lady who had suffered many abortions".

On this aspect, there is the evidence of P.W. 1 alone. That apart, if really the Petitioner had used any such words, there is no reason as to why these two witnesses, viz., P. W. 2, the cook, and P. W. 3 do not refer to the user of any such words. Be that as it may, there is no publication of the defamatory matter alleged by P. W. 1. Therefore, the conviction and sentence are set aside. The fine, if collected, shall be refunded. The revision case is allowed.