_edited_edited.jpg)
Case Name - D.P. Choudhary and Ors. v. Kumari Manjulata on 4 April, 1997
Case Citation - AIR 1997 Raj 170
Parties Involved -
Appellant - Kumari Manjulata
Respondent - Durga Prasad, Deen Bahdhu Choudhary,
Bench - Justice Mohd. Yamin
Relevant Acts and Sections - Section 499 IPC
Facts of the Case
Kumari Manjulata was a 17-year-old girl from Jodhpur. She belonged to an educated family. Her family was highly respected in their community. One day a local newspaper named Dainik Navjyoti published a false and defamatory statement about Kumari Manjulata. They wrote that she had run away with someone. This created a lot of problems for her and her family. They were ridiculed and her marriage prospects were affected. They faced huge embarrassment because of the published news.
She filed a case before the Addl District Judge, Jodhpur who passed the decree in her favor. The decision was appealed by the defendants in the higher court. Hence Kumari Manjulata became the respondent and the publisher of the news became the appellants.
Issues of the Case
Whether the defendants published the news negligently or with malicious intentions?
Whether the damages claimed by the plaintiff are justified or not?
Arguments of the Appellants
The counsel for the appellants submitted that they received the news from a reliable source. They did not publish the news with malicious intentions. The information was confirmed by various people. It was based on correct facts and hence he should be held liable. The owner of the newspaper submitted that they were not aware of the same as the information was collected by the reporter. They also submitted that the damages claimed were unjust and vague.
Arguments of the Respondents
The counsel for the respondents submitted that they have faced a lot of embarrassment due to the false and negligent news. Their reputation was tarnished in the eyes of people they know. Her arrangement of marriage became difficult because of such accusations. They claimed Rs.10000 as damages.
Judgment of the Case
The court said that
"From the evidence oh record it is found that the defendant appellants after having received information from the policed without any proper verification published the news item, with the result Manjulata and her parents lost their prestige in the society and in eyes of relatives as well as the persons who knew them."
The court held that the action of the appellants has caused trouble to the appellants. The appellants faced humiliation in the society. Their public, as well as their personal life, was affected. The action of the appellant amounted to defamation. Damages of Rs.10000 were also held to be justified.
Similar Cases:
For a more simple understanding, refer to the article " Can You Sue The Media For Defamation?" by clicking the button below.
Comments