S. Manikumar, J.@mdashThe unsuccessful plaintiff in both the lower Courts, who has lost his claim for damages against the District Collector and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District, is the appellant herein. For brevity, the parties are addressed as plaintiff and defendants.
2. According to the plaintiff, he is a social worker with good reputation in the society, residing at Tindivanam. On 20.1.1992, agitations were done by Dravida Kazhagam members, in support of Karnataka Tamil residents, who were arrested. P.M.K. Leader, Thiru. Deeran, Thiru. Sambandam and the plaintiff went to the Police Station to visit the arrested persons. The second defendant, Deputy Superintendent of Police, warned him not to take any action against Thiru. A. Sankaran, with regard to his appointment as Public Prosecutor. Thereafter, the police officer shouted at him to "get out of the room" and thus, the plaintiff was humiliated and put to mental agony. On 21.1.1992, an All Party Meeting was conducted, condemning the act of the second respondent and that a complaint was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram on 23.1.1992, to take action against the second defendant. As the reputation of the plaintiff, both as a Social Worker and Senior Lecturer in Government College, was lowered in the mind of the public and for the mental agony, estimating the damages at Rs. 30,000/- a notice, u/s 80 CPC, was issued on 11.03.1992, for which, the second defendant sent a reply, dated 4.5.1992, denying its contents and his liability. According to the plaintiff, he has restricted his claim to Rs. 16,000/-and instituted the suit.
3. Denying the allegations made in the plaint, the second defendant has filed a written statement, submitting that he had joined duty as Deputy Superintendent of Police, in that place only a few months, prior to the alleged occurrence and that he had no occasion to know the plaintiff as a social worker. On 20.1.1992, while he was in the Circle office, instructing the Inspector of Police, about the law and order situation, regarding the agitation by some persons belonging to Dravidar Kazhagam, the plaintiff came there and introduced himself as a Professor of Tindivanam Arts College. The defendant offered him a seat. He was talking about the agitation. Suddenly, the plaintiff found fault with the Police Department, for giving a report, in favour of Mr. A. Sankaran, Advocate, Tindivanam, for his appointment as Public Prosecutor. When the discussion between them was going on, in a very normal manner, suddenly, the plaintiff started shouting, stating that Police had given clean chit to an anti-social element and if support is extented to the above said individual, the plaintiff along with others would "gherao" the Police. The second defendant was surprised at the sudden outburst of the plaintiff and requested him to control himself and advised him to go away. The plaintiff started absusing the Police. Thereafter, the second defendant has firmly told the plaintiff to go out of the Police Station. Even, while going out of the Police Station, the plaintiff has challenged the second defendant that he would give him enough trouble in his own way. According to the second defendant, the above said events alone had happened on 20.1.1992, inside the Inspector''s room and he has denied the allegation that there was a bodily threat or humiliation to the plaintiff. For the above said reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. Initially, the trial Court framed following issues, viz.,
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the amount claimed in the suit?
(2) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for? (3) Whether the second defendant has defamed the plaintiff?
5. Subsequently, the above issues were altered, as follows,
(1) Whether the second defendant has uttered anything, defaming the plaintiff?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the amount as claimed for in the suit?
(3) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for?
6. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1. In support of his claim, he examined four witnesses as P.W.s 2 to 5 and marked Exhibits A-1 to A-8. The second defendant examined himself as D.W.2 and two other witnesses were also examined as D.W.s.1 and 3. On his side, Exhibits B-1 to B-6 were marked.
7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the lower Court dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 34 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions, Tindivanam. Upon considering the materials available on record and the rival submissions, the lower appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree, dismissing the lower Court. The second appeal is against the concurrent decisions.
8. While entertaining the second appeal, this Court has framed following substantial questions of law,
(i) Whether the defamatory allegations by a police officer is the course of his duty do not constitute a vicarious liability on the government to make it liable for compensation?
(ii) Whether in a suit for defamation, the plaintiffs own relative high standing in the society and propensity for social work, nota relevant factor for juding the quality of his evidence and the truth of his contention?
9. Seeking to set aside the judgment and decrees of the Courts below on the above substantial questions of law and inviting the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W.s 2 and 4, Mr. Venkateshlu, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate that there was cogent evidence, regarding the defamatory statement made by the second defendant in the Police Station. He further submitted that the reasoning of the Courts below that had there been any incident, as alleged, by the plaintiff, a Revenue Divisional Officer, would have been appointed for conducting an enquiry and the observation that when the fact remains that such an enquiry had not been conducted, nor the plaintiff had taken any steps for such an enquiry, itself would prove that there was no such incident, are wholly erroneous, as no such enquiry is required to be conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, considering the nature of allegation.
10. Inviting the attention of this Court to the oral testimony of P.W.2 that, immediately after the defamatory statement made by the 2nd defendant, in the presence of the members of Dravidar Kazhagam that the plaintiff would be beaten up, an all party meeting was conducted on 21.9.2002, condemning the action of the 2nd defendant and that a resolution was also passed and that on 23.1.1998, a complaint was also lodged with the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District, with a copy marked to the Hon''ble Chief Minister and other higher police officials, Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that condemning the action of the 2nd defendant, Ex. A7 pamphlet was issued, and an enquiry was also conducted in this regard. But ignoring the above, the lower appellate Court, has erred in recording a finding, as if, no complaint was given by the plaintiff to the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram.
11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that both the Courts below have grossly erred in dismissing the suit without proper appreciation of the evidence on record, by which the plaintiff has categorically established that by abuse and threat, the reputation of the plaintiff, a Senior Lecturer had been lowered in the mind of the general public and thus he had suffered agony and humiliation, for which, he is entitled to appropriate compensation.
12. Per contra, Ms. Mythitisuresh, learned counsel for the 2nd defendant submitted that on proper appreciation of evidence, both the Courts have concurrently found that the plaintiff has not proved the fact of either abuse or intimidation to beat him and in such circumstances, rightly declined to grant the relief sought for. She further submitted that the evidence of P.W.s 2 and 4 have been considered properly and both the Courts below have categorically found that there was no direct evidence to prove that the 2nd defendant had asked the plaintiff to get out of the police station and it was only hearsay. She also submitted that even the plaintiff and the supporting witnesses have also deposed that it is only from some of the arrested persons, they came to know that the 2nd defendant had abused the plaintiff and in the absence of any direct evidence, no liability can be fastened on the defendants either jointly or severally.
13. Inviting the attention of this Court to the testimony of P.W.s to the effect that there is no change in the reputation of the plaintiff in the mind of the general public, she further submitted that the plaintiff has failed to make out a case of agony, humiliation and consequently loss of reputation in the mind of the general public and in such circumstances, he is not entitled to seek for damages. In this context, learned counsel for the 2nd defendant, drew the attention of this Court to the relavant portion of the evidence of P.W.s 2 to 5 and further submitted that when the scope of re-appreciation of evidence is limited, it is not for the plaintiff to reagitate the findings. According to her, there is no perversity in the findings. On the contention that the lower appellate Court has erroneously approached the issues and recorded a finding that the absence of an enquiry by a Revenue Divisional Officer, itself would prove that no such incident had occurred in the police station, learned counsel for the 2nd defendant submitted that even if that was one of the reasons for rejecting the case of the plaintiff, the same would not materially affect the findings of the Courts below. According to her, no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal warranting interference and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
14. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
15. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it is necessary to bear in mind that the Courts while adjudicating the dispute regarding defamation and the relief for damages, should address the issues with reference to the following cardinal principles of law. The essential nature of a defamatory statement is that it is one that causes an adverse effect on a person''s reputation i.e., how it is viewed by others. A statement made should have a tendency to lower or adversely affect a person''s reputation or if it exposes a person to "hatred or ridicule'', or causes him to be ''shunned or avoided'', or injures his reputation in the conduct of his trade or business or professional activity. To be defamatory, a statement need only have the tendency to affect a person''s reputation; it need not actually lower it. However, the standard to be applied is whether his reputation is affected in the estimation of right-thinking members of the society generally. Mere insult or abuse do not by itself constitute defamation, although it may be offensive to a man''s dignity, unless and until it is proved to have lowered his reputation in the estimation of others.
16. As per the testimony of the plaintiff, that on 20.1.1992, due to some agitation in favour of the suffering Karnataka Tamilans, some persons have been arrested and kept in police station. The plaintiff along with PMK leaders Thiru. Deeran and Thiru. Sambandam went to the police station to meet those who have been arrested. The Deputy Superintendent of Police from the Inspector''s room called the plaintiff through a police constable and when he entered the room, the 2nd defendant started saying something about the appointment of one Thiru. A. Sankaran, Advocate, as a Public Prosecutor and that there should not be any agitation, for which, the plaintiff replied that Thiru. A. Sankaran had deceived two widows in payment of compensation amount awarded in Motor Accident Claims cases and that the police was not fair in supporting such person to be appointed as a Public Prosecutor.
17. The plaintiff has further deposed that when he had replied in a polite manner that he was ready to face anything, the 2nd defendant shouted at the plaintiff by saying "get out''. It is the further case of the plaintiff that even thereafter, when he politely told the 2nd defendant that it was not proper to abuse and when he came out to the police station, the 2nd defendant, in a very angry mood shouted at the plaintiff, by saying that the plaintiff had already spoiled the college and has now come to spoil the society. Saying so, the 2nd defendant got up from the seat and unable to bear the humiliation, the plaintiff came out of the room. During the chief examination, the plaintiff has further deposed that when he was coming out from the police station, the 2nd defendant continued shouting at the plaintiff. He has also deposed that near the gate in an intimidating manner, a police constable also asked his identity and whether he knew to whom he was talking.
18. It is the further case of the plaintiff that thereafter, he went along with Thiru. Deeran. Thereafter, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the 2nd defendant abused the plaintiff in the presence of those who had been arrested and kept in the police station and others who had come to see them. The abuse made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the second defendant was informed to him, by the arrested persons. One Thiru. Sambandam, who had gone to the police station to see them, also informed him. Thus, primarily, it could be seen from the testimony of the plaintiff that the conversation between them, seemed to have occurred inside the Inspector''s room and that the 2nd defendant is alleged to have threatened, after the plaintiff had left the room.
19. Per contra, it is the evidence of the 2nd defendant that when the plaintiff threatened him by stating that if the police continue to support Thiru. A. Sankaran to be apponted as Public Prosecutor, then he would not leave them, whatever be the consequences and to avoid further altercation and with good intention, the 2nd defendant asked the plaintiff to leave the police station. In his evidence, he has stated that he had not used any defamatory words, nor threatened the plaintiff that he would beat him.
20. In order to prove that the 2nd defendant has shouted at him, to get out of the police station and threatened him in the midst of the arrested persons and thereby, casued mental agony, humiliation and loss of reputation in the mind of the general public, one of the arrested persons, viz., Thiru. Veeraraghavan has been examined as P.W.2. Though P.W.2 in his chief examination has deposed that the 2nd defendant had shouted at the plaintiff, by stating that he would beat him, during cross examination, he has admitted that all the arrested persons were seated in the back side of the police station and that he was not aware, as to what happened inside the room. Though the plaintiff in his deposition has stated that he went to the police station along with PMK Leaders Thiru. Deeran and Thiru. Sambandam, at the instance of the police, P.W.2 in his evidence has contradicted by saying that all the three persons had come to the police station on their own and that before the alleged incident Thiru. Sambandam and Thiru. Deeran had left the police station. It is evident from the above, the two utterences allegedly made by the 2nd defendant, were, (1) inside the Inspector''s room, i.e., shouting at the plaintiff "to get out" and the other incident is alleged to have occurred after the plaintiff came out of the room, when the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the 2nd defendant continued to shout that the plaintiff having spoiled the college has come to spoil the society and that he would beat him. According to the plaintiff and other witnesses, when the first incident occurred inside the Inspector''s room, excepting the above referred two persons, viz., the plaintiff and the second defendant, nobody was present. Insofar as the alleged second incident is concerned, the plaintiff has no direct knowledge of the statement said to have been made by the 2nd defendant and therefore, it was only hearsay.
21. It is also the categorical admission of the other witnesses that they did not know as to what happened inside the Inspector''s room. Perusal of the evidence of P.W.2 also shows that he did not hear the 2nd defendant shouting at the plaintiff, to get out of the room. It is his further evidence that the persons who were arrested, were all seated in the back side of the police station. Though the said witness has also deposed that there were about 400 to 500 persons, who have heard the 2nd defendant shouting, he has categorically deposed that even after the incident, the plaintiff has maintained his reputation in the society. P.W.2 has also deposed that he was not aware as to whether any criminal complaint was given against the 2nd defendant and that the public who were waiting outside the police station did not speak anything, questioning the conduct of the 2nd defendant. At this juncture, it is to be noted that if the plaintiff was really abused to get out of the room, he would have certainly informed Mr. Dheeran, who was waiting outside the Police Station, when 400 to 500 persons were outside the police station, certainly, they would have reacted to the alleged abuse. It is the case of the plaintiff that after the second defendant shouted at him, to get out of the police station, he simply walked out of the room and went along with Mr. Dheeran.
22. P.W.3 in his cross examination has candidly admitted that he did not go to the police station on the date of the alleged incident nor witnessed the same, but it was only hearsay. He did not know about the incident on 20.1.1992 and came to know about the same only on the next day. Answering a specific question as to whether the reputation of the plaintiff was lowered in the mind of the general public, it is the specific reply of P.W.2, that as far as the general public is concerned, there was some reduction in giving respect to the plaintiff, but at the same time, his participation in public activities and agitations, have been duly supported by the general public, notwithstanding the alleged incident. P.W.4 in his evidece has deposed that since the Deputy Superintendent of Police called the plaintiff, he went inside the Inspector''s room, where there was some noice and that the Deputy Superintendent of Police came out of the room, shouted by stating that "who is Kalyani" and that he would beat him. In his cross examination, like P.W.2, he has also deposed that all the arrested persons were kept in the backside of the police station and nobody could see or hear, as to what happened inside the inspector''s room. It is also his further evidence that there was no loss of reputation to the plaintiff, on account of the incident.
23. P.W.5 in his cross examination has deposed that he did not go to the police station and he did not know directly, as to what happened in the police station. He has also categorically stated that even after the incident, there was no loss of reputation to the plaintiff. Thus it could be seen from the overall evidence let in on the side of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was not called by the police and that he along with two other leaders of a political party had gone to the station to meet the persons who were arrested in connection with an agitation, in favour of the suffering Karnataka Tamilans.
26. As far as the first part of the incident is concerned that during conversation, the 2nd defendant in an angry mood has shouted at the plaintiff to get out of the room, which caused agony, none of the witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff have either seen or heard, the second defendant saying so and therefore, their evidence does not support the case of the plaintiff. For the other part of the incident, said to have lowered the image or reputation of the plaintiff in the mind of the general public that the 2nd defendant shouted at the plaintiff, by stating that he would beat him, it is only hearsay, and the plaintiff did not directly hear the 2nd defendant abusing, or threatening him. Insofar as the 2nd part of the incident is concerned, it is the evidence of P.W.s 3 and 5, that they did not go to the police station, on the date of the alleged occurrence, and that they were only hearsay witnesses. P.W.s 2 and 4, persons stated to have been arrested and kept in the police station, have also deposed that they were kept in the back side of the police station and that they were not aware as to what happened inside the Inspector''s room. It is also their evidence that the plaintiff was not there, when the said statement was made by the 2nd defendant. As rightly observed by both the Courts below, only on the basis of hearsay evidence, the plaintiff has come to a conclusion that his image or reputation has been lowered, by the conduct of the 2nd defendant.
25. Admittedly, though Exhibit A-7 Pamphlet has been circulated, the plaintiff has not chosen to prefer any criminal complaint. Though the learned counsel for the plaintiff inter alia contended that a specific complaint in Exhibit P-8 dated 23.1.1992 was given against the 2nd defendant, to the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram and that the lower appellate Court has erred in recording a finding that no complaint was given, perusal of Exhibit B-3 dated 10.5.1992, shows that a report has been sent to the Deputy Inspector General of Police by the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram and Exhibit B-4 dated 5.1994 report sent by the Superintendent of Police to Home Secretary, shows that the 2nd defendant has forwarded a report to the higher officers, stating that the plaintiff had appeared before him and during an official meeting, he has informed about his behaviour of the plaintiff to the Special Branch and to the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram, over phone. He has also submitted a report on 23.1.1992 to the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the finding recorded by the lower appellate Court that there was no complaint to the Superintendent of Police, is not correct, as the 2nd defendant either on his own or pursuant to the complaint, would have forwarded a report on 23.1.1992, to the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District. However, as against the testimony of two witnesses namely, P.W.s 2 and 4 who were arrested and kept behind the police station, D.W.2, the then Inspector of Police, Tindivanam, Law and Order has deposed that on 20.10.1992, when he was on duty, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam, came to his office and while he was giving instructions, the plaintiff on his own, came inside the room and introduced himself as a Professor. He has categorically deposed that it was the plaintiff, who was talking in high pitch and that even when the 2nd defendant had been repeatedly asking him to leave the place, the plaintiff was shouting inside the room. He has also deposed that the 2nd defendant did not abuse or threaten the plaintiff. Thus, it could be seen that the first part of the alleged incident has not been proved by any concrete and direct evidence. Insofar as the second part is concerned, it is purely hearsay and there is no concrete and direct evidence that the alleged abuse said to have been made by the 2nd defendant, has lowered the plaintiffs image or reputation in the society. On the contra, most of the witnesses have categorically deposed that the image or reputation of the plaintiff remained unchanged and not lowered in the mind of the general public and that the people continued to extend their support to the plaintiff, in all his activities and that the alleged abuse had not affected his reputation in the estimation of right thinking members of the society. Therefore, even taking for granted there was some insult or abuse, which in this case has not been proved by any concrete evidence, that by itself would not constitute defamation, unless and until it is proved that it has lowered the reputation or it has affected the plaintiff in the estimation of others. In the light of the above discussion, and adjudging the rival submissions, with reference to the principles of law stated at the beginning of the judgment, this Court is of the view that the findings recorded by the Courts below on the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence cannot be said to be perverse, warranting interference, nor, it could be said that the Courts below have failed to advert to the evidence of P.W.s 2 and 4 in proper perspective. From the above, this Court is unable to come to a contrary conclusion that the plaintiff has been defamed by the conduct and alleged abuse made by the 2nd defendant. Hence, the substantial questions of law are answered in the negative against the appellant. Consequently, the Second Appeal is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.
