Sridevi Panikkar, Mr. Abhimanue Shreshta, Mr. Satwik Parikh, Ms. Kritika, Advs v. V.K. SAXENA

Judgment

1. The petitioner has preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition under Section 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), assailing the Judgment dated 02.04.2025 and the Order on Sentence dated 08.04.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-05 (hereinafter referred to as “Appellate Court”), South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in Criminal Appeal No. 247/2024. Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P. 163/2025 Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Date:29.07.2025 18:27:19

2. By the said Judgment, the learned Appellate Court affirmed the petitioner‟s conviction under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), as recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-06 (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”), South-East District, Saket Courts, vide the Judgment dated 24.05.2024 in the complaint instituted by the respondent. The learned Appellate Court further proceeded, by the Order dated 08.04.2025, to direct release of the petitioner on probation, albeit subject to specified conditions. 3. The learned Trial Court, by its Order on Sentence dated

01.07.2024, had awarded to the petitioner a sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of five months, along with a direction to 10,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation, with a further stipulation that in default of payment, she would undergo an ₹ additional term of simple imprisonment for three months. FACTUAL MATRIX 4. The genesis of the controversy lies in events dating back to the year 2000. At the relevant time, the complainant (respondent herein) was the President of the National Council of Civil Liberties (NCCL), a registered society stated to be actively supporting the Sardar Sarovar Project in Gujarat and exposing purported malpractices in the public and private sectors. 5. In opposition to the said project, stood the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), a movement led by the petitioner herein and the NBA voiced concerns on environmental and human rights grounds. 6. On 10.11.2000, the NCCL published an advertisement in The Indian Express titled “True face of Ms. Medha Patkar and her Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P. 163/2025 Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Date:29.07.2025 18:27:19 Narmada Bachao Andolan” [Ex. CW1/D1], criticising the NBA‟s ideology and activities. According to the complainant/respondent, this advertisement prompted the petitioner to retaliate through a defamatory Press Note. 7. complainant The alleges

25.11.2000, complainant/respondent received an email [Ex. CW1/A] from one Mr. Dilip Gohil (CW-2), a purported Rediff.com correspondent, enclosing a Press Note dated 24.11.2000 titled “True Face of a Patriot – Response to an Advertisement”. The Press Note, bearing the petitioner‟s name, as per the complaint, was published in Gujarati on the Rediff.com website [Ex. CW1/B and CW1/D2]. 8. The complainant/respondent categorically denied the veracity of these claims raised in the Press Note and deposed that he had neither visited Malegaon nor made any donations to Lok Samiti, nor ever praised the NBA. He issued a legal notice dated 09.12.2000 [Ex. CW1/C] to the petitioner, which remained unanswered. 9. The complainant/respondent alleged that the Press Note caused considerable damage to his reputation, particularly among the Gujarati-speaking populace and supporters of the Sardar Sarovar Project. He was confronted by several individuals after publication, seeking clarification on the alleged support extended by him to the NBA. 10. In support of his case, the complainant/respondent examined himself as CW-1, along with three other witnesses: CW-2 (Dilip Gohil), CW-3 (Nilesh Sachdev), and CW-4 (Rajesh Kumar, Judicial Assistant) and closed the complainant‟s evidence. Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P. 163/2025 Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Date:29.07.2025 18:27:19

11. The petitioner‟s statement under Section 313 of the CrPC was recorded on 18.05.2022, wherein she denied all allegations, asserting that she had no knowledge of the complainant‟s activities and that she had not issued the alleged Press Note, and had no connection with Rediff.com, the website narmada.org, or the publication in question.

She, however, chose not to lead any evidence in defence. 12. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court proceeded to convict the petitioner under Section 500 of the IPC, holding that it had been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner had published the Press Note with the intent & knowledge that it would harm the reputation of the respondent. Thereupon, the learned Trial Court proceeded to pass the sentence vide Order dated 01.07.2024. 13. Dissatisfied with the Impugned Judgment and the Order on Sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the learned Appellate Court. After hearing both the parties, the appeal was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide the Order dated 08.04.2025 and the sentence was modified, whereby the petitioner was to be released on probation, subject to the following conditions: i. Deposit of 1,00,000/- as compensation, recoverable as fine; ₹ ii. Execution of a probation bond in the sum of 25,000/- with one surety; ₹ iii. Submission of quarterly supervision reports by the District Probation Officer; and Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P. 163/2025 Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Date:29.07.2025 18:27:19 iv. Appearance before the Trial Court once every three months.

14. To lay a challenge to the Impugned Judgment and Order on Sentence passed by the learned Appellate Court, the petitioner preferred the present petition. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER 15. Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, assailed the Impugned Judgement and Order on Sentence on multiple grounds of legal infirmity and evidentiary insufficiency, raising two main questions for consideration i) whether findings of the appellate court vis-à-vis CW-3 are correct; and ii) whether the findings based on the alleged “Admission”, both by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, are factually and legally tenable. 16. At the outset, it was submitted that the petitioner‟s conviction is unsustainable in law, as it rests on material that fails to meet the threshold of proof required in criminal law, namely, the establishment of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 17. He submitted that the conviction opposes the cardinal rules of criminal law, namely, that each link in the chain of circumstances has to be fully established, however, in the present case, the main link in the chain of evidence is missing so as to support the conclusion that the Press Note dated 24.11.2000 allegedly contained in the email dated 25.11.2000 (Ex.CW1/1A) was sent by the petitioner to CW2. 18. The learned Senior Counsel contended that both the respondent (CW-1) and Mr. Dilip Gohil (CW-2) tendered identical affidavits under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“the Act”) Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P. 163/2025 Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Date:29.07.2025 18:27:19 which were exhibited as EX.CW1/X and Ex.CW2/X, in support of same documents exhibited as Ex. CW1/1A and Ex.CW1/D2. The cross examination of the said witnesses, he submitted, would show that the affidavit tendered by the witnesses does not qualify as a valid certification under Section 65B of the Act, as they do not satisfy the mandatory conditions laid down by the law and in fact, indicate that the same has been tendered as a mere formality. 19. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that CW2, in cross examination admitted that the affidavit does not state on which date he downloaded or took a printout of the said Exhibits. CW-2 also admitted that the affidavit does not provide any information as to who gave the print out. The learned Senior Counsel contended that CW-2 further admitted that in his previous statements dated 27.08.2018 and

26.11.2018, he did not even mention that he was the one, who took the printout or gave it to anyone. More so, CW-2 also admitted that there is nothing on record to show that he was employed with Rediff.com in the year 2000 or any point before or after. 20. To support this argument, the learned Senior Counsel relied on Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1 and Smriti Madan Kasangra vs. Perry Kasangra (2021) 12 SCC 289. 21. Inviting the Court‟s attention to the documents marked as Exhibits CW1/A and CW3/A, Mr. Parikh submitted that neither document bears any proof of authorship, nor does it establish any nexus with the petitioner. The purported email (Ex. CW1/A) lacks any identifiable sender address, and the web pages (Ex. CW3/A and Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P. 163/2025 Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Date:29.07.2025 18:27:19 CW3/D2) relied upon by the learned Appellate Court were introduced into evidence without any certification under Section 65B of the Act, and in contravention of the safeguards required for admissibility of electronic records. 22. Moreover, CW3/A was produced by CW-3 to fill up the lacuna after examination of CW-1 and CW-2 and could not have been taken in evidence. 23. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that as regards the evidence of CW3, the brother-in-law of the respondent and a member of his organisation, who introduced Ex. CW3/A is clearly biased as he was incompetent to testify as to the authorship or authenticity of the said document. He impressed upon the submission that CW-3 was neither the author nor custodian of the said document and he did not contact the administrators or owners of the website narmada.org to confirm the provenance or authorship of the material therein. The document in question is stated to be sourced from the website “narmada.org”, which itself carries a disclaimer that it is not affiliated with the petitioner or the NBA and further no administrator or custodian of the said website was examined by the respondent. 24. The respondent has also failed to prove that the website Narmada.org is owned by Narmada Bachao Andolan or the petitioner. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is a convenor of the NAPM. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that even on appreciation of the evidence of CW-3 and the perusal of the Ex.CW3/A and Ex.CW3/D2, it cannot be said to have been proven that the Press Note was ever issued by the petitioner. The authenticity Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P. 163/2025 Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Date:29.07.2025 18:27:19 and correctness of the material placed on the record, he submitted, has not been ascertained by anyone. 25. It was further urged that CW 3/A is beyond pleadings as the same does not find mention either in the complaint or in the evidence led by CW 1 and CW 2 and thus, could not be made basis for conviction. 26. He further submitted that the objection raised by the petitioner for taking on record Ex.CW3/A has not been dealt with either by the learned Trial Court or the learned Appellate Court. 27. Furthermore, the learned Senior Counsel assailed the reliance placed by the learned Trial Court on an entry in the “List of Dates” filed in Crl.M.C. No. 6026/2018 titled as “Ms. Medha Patkar vs. The State”, a petition filed by the petitioner in this Court seeking quashing of the previous complaint filed by the respondent against her in the year 2018. He submitted that the petitioner filed an application in the said Crl. MC seeking its withdrawal on the ground of inadvertent mistake on the part of the office of the Advocate of the petitioner in filing a draft petition, pending approval of the petitioner. The said Crl. M.C. was permitted to be withdrawn by this Court. 28. It was submitted that the reliance placed on the averments made in the “List of Dates”, particularly in a withdrawn petition, does not amount to an admission in law. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the reliance placed on Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam (1974) 1 SCC 242 and Basant Singh v. Janki Singh 1966 SCC OnLine SC 234 by the learned Trial Court and the respondent is entirely misplaced as both cases were civil suits, where admissions Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P. 163/2025 Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Date:29.07.2025 18:27:19 stand on a materially different footing. In criminal jurisprudence, certain confessions recorded in accordance with the procedural and evidentiary safeguards mandated by law are admissible against an accused. 29. He further submitted that the law on admissions is well settled as contained between Section 17 to 31 of the Act. However, the “List of Dates” is for the convenience of the court and is neither a pleading nor a part of the formal record and is not verified by way of an affidavit, thus, any recital therein cannot qualify as an “Admission”. The learned counsel submitted that law is clear that pleadings may be binding, but “lists of dates” cannot be equated with pleadings. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Alind Workers Congress (affiliated to INTUC) vs United Shippers Ltd. 2008 SCC OnLine AP 270 and Leo Ispat Ltd vs. Radlay Metal Products (P) Ltd. 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7579 to submit that same principle of law that “List of Dates” is not part of pleadings has been reiterated in these judgments. 30. Mr. Parikh submitted that in fact, the learned Trial Court itself, in paragraph 74 of its Judgment, acknowledges the withdrawal of Crl. M.C. along with all accompanying documents, pursuant to an application filed supported with an affidavit. In such circumstances, he submitted, is wholly impermissible treat any entry/averment in the said petition as a subsisting or binding admission. He emphasised, once a pleading is withdrawn no part thereof can be relied upon in subsequent proceedings to establish culpability. Reliance was placed upon Behari Lal Pal vs Baran Mai Dasi ILR (1895) 17 All 53, Bhimangouda vs Sangappa Irappa Patil Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P. 163/2025 Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Date:29.07.2025 18:27:19 AIR 1960 Mys 178 and Sukumar Banerjee vs Dilip Kumar Sarkar AIR 1982 Cal 17 31. On sentencing, the learned Senior Counsel raised an objection, without prejudice to rights of the petitioner and submitted that the Appellate Court‟s decision to release the petitioner on probation is primarily under Section 360 of the CrPC, although the Impugned Order ambiguously invokes concept akin to those under Sections 4 and 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “Probation Act”). The two statutory provisions, he submits, operate in different domains and cannot be invoked simultaneously. More so, the precondition as provided in Proviso to Section 4 and Sub-Section 3 of Section 4 of the Probation Act is mandatory for application of the said provision of the Act, which does not exist in the present case. Sustenance is drawn from State of M.P vs Man Singh (2019) 10 SCC 161 and Biswajit Chowdhury vs S.S Distributors 2002 SCC OnLine Cal 421. 32. While drawing the attention of this Court to the relevant provision of the two statues, he submitted, Section 360 of the CrPC applies where the Probation Act is not in force and is available only for first-time offenders, with provision limited to executing a bond for good conduct. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that petitioner being a woman, aged 70 years with social standing as noted in the order dated 08.04.2025 has been released on probation, being eligible for benefit but under Section 360 CrPC. However, directions such as filing supervision reports, to be monitored by Probation Officer and recovery of compensation as fine are traceable only to Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P. 163/2025 Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Date:29.07.2025 18:27:19 Sections 4 and 5 of the Probation Act, and thus conflate the two statutes and not applicable in this case. To support his contention, the learned counsel further placed reliance on Chhanni v. State of U.P.