Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal Acquitted In Criminal Defamation Case Filed by BJP MP Ramesh Bidhuri

Mr. Bidhuri had alleged that Mr. Kejriwal had made defamatory remarks against him in a programme aired on 17.07.2015 and repeated on 18.07.2015 and 19.07.2015 on TV news channel namely 'AajTak' wherein Mr. Kejriwal was interviewed by Mr. Rajdeep Sardesai of AajTak TV Channel. It was alleged by Mr. Bidhuri that the statement made by Mr. Kejriwal in the said interview to the effect that, "Ramesh Bidhuri Ke Khilaf Bade Bade Sangeen Charges Hein, Unko Pakda Aapne" (There are some serious charges levied against Ramesh Bidhuri. Did you catch him?) had resulted in implanting suspicion and lack of confidence among his voters and supporters. He alleged that, he was told of the said interview by his supporters and voters while he was at the party office. This had resulted in lowering his dignity in the eyes of public at large. Mr. Bidhuri claimed to have seen the re-telecast of the interview on 19.07.2015 and had alleged that the words spoken by Mr. Kejriwal were uttered with a deliberate and malicious intent to defame and tarnish his reputation despite knowing them to be false.

Mr. Arvind Kejriwal in his statement recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. had denied and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the present case and he had not made any defamatory and derogatory remarks against the complainant. He had also stated that the statement made by him was general to highlight the discriminatory attitude of Delhi police against the supporters and leaders of Aam Aadmi Party.

Ld. Sr. Adv. Ajay Burman appearing for the complainant Mr. Bidhuri had vehemently argued that they had successfully discharged the burden of proof by leading cogent evidence on record thereby establishing all the ingredients of the offence made out u/s 499 of IPC. He had also argued that the defamatory statement given by the accused Mr. Kejriwal, during interview had been admitted by him in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and that he had not denied the same during the cross examination of complainant's witnesses, hence, the accused was liable to be convicted u/s 500 IPC. It was also argued that that the exception 1 of section 499 IPC pleaded by accused had not been established as neither he had proved on record the involvement of complainant in heinous offences nor he could establish that the statement made by him was for public good. Reliance was placed on various judgements including Sanjay Mishra v. NCT of Delhi (2012 SCC Online Del 1779) to support their claims.

Ld. Senior Advocate Ms. Rebecca John appearing for the accused sought for his acquittal on the ground that complainant had miserably failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence u/s 499 IPC as neither he could lead any substantial evidence in the form of documents nor the oral evidence led by the complainant witnesses. It was also argued that statement of the accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. was not an admission of facts but an explanation qua his remarks and hence, the onus of proof was never discharged by the prosecution. She had concluded her arguments by asserting that accused had led sufficient evidence on record to show the pendency of several criminal cases against the complainant which he also had admitted in the affidavit filed before election commission and thus the complainant cannot be said to have come before the court with clean hands. Reliance was placed on a number of judicial precedents including Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of AP, [(1997) 7 SCC 431] in furtherance of their arguments.

After due consideration of the arguments made by both the parties and evidence brought on record, ACMM Vishal Pahuja acquitted Mr. Kejriwal of the charge levied against him on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. He held that the downloaded version of the alleged interview on a CD produced as secondary evidence before the court along with certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act by the complainant, had failed to specify from which server it had been downloaded. Furthermore, the downloaded version of the interview was not an edited/adulterated version had also not been established.

The Court ruled that, the three requisites for establishing the offence of criminal defamation namely

1. Making or publishing an imputation concerning a person
2. Such imputation must have been made by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations
3. The said imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or with the knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned

were not established beyond reasonable doubt by the complainant. The evidence lead on record by the complainant was held to be insufficient to hold the accused guilty.

Mr. Arvind Kejriwal was represented by Sr. Adv. Rebecca John.

Mr. Ramesh Bidhuri was represented by Sr. Adv. Ajay Burman.

Click here to download the order

Read Order