BIG LEGAL VICTORY: DELHI COURT ACQUITS SCHOOL
TEACHER AFTER 13-YEAR BATTLE IN CRIMINAL DEFAMATION CASE
Court rules that mere allegations,
suspicion and hearsay cannot establish criminal defamation; absence of exact
defamatory words and independent eyewitnesses proves fatal to prosecution.
New Delhi | 31 October 2026
In a significant legal victory for a school
teacher, the Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, has acquitted Ms. Bharti Sharma
of criminal defamation charges under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),
bringing an end to a criminal case instituted more than 13 years ago.
The judgment was pronounced on 28
September 2026 by Shri Kartik Taparia, Judicial Magistrate
First Class–06, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in S.K.
Saxena v. Bharti Sharma, Complaint Case No. 515362/2016.
Advocate Anuj Aggarwal represented the
accused teacher and successfully contested the allegations of criminal
defamation.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The dispute arose between Ms. Bharti Sharma, a
primary school teacher at Rukmani Devi Jaipuria Public School, Delhi, and Mr.
S.K. Saxena, the then Principal of the school.
The complainant alleged that the teacher had made
derogatory remarks against him and his wife during disciplinary proceedings,
threatened to implicate him in false cases, and instigated students or others
to write abusive slogans on classroom walls.
The criminal complaint was instituted on 25
March 2013 under Section 500 IPC. The accused denied the allegations
and contested the proceedings.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE DEFENCE
Appearing for the accused, Advocate Anuj
Aggarwal argued that the complainant had failed to disclose the
precise words allegedly spoken by the teacher that could constitute criminal
defamation.
He further submitted that no independent
eyewitness had been examined to establish that the accused had publicly made
defamatory statements.
The defence also challenged the allegations
regarding abusive slogans written on classroom walls, pointing out that there
was no reliable evidence connecting the teacher to those writings or their
instigation.
KEY FINDINGS OF THE COURT
1. Exact defamatory words not established
The Court held that the complainant had failed to
disclose the exact words allegedly spoken by the accused. Without those words,
it was impossible to determine whether they were defamatory.
2. No independent eyewitnesses
The Court observed that the complainant had
failed to examine any eyewitness to substantiate the allegations. Evidence
concerning statements allegedly made in his absence was based on hearsay.
3. No evidence connecting the teacher to
abusive slogans
The Court found no evidence establishing that the
accused had written or instigated anyone to write abusive slogans on classroom
walls.
4. Suspicion cannot replace proof
The Court held that suspicion and conjecture were
insufficient to establish criminal liability.
COURT HOLDS THAT DEFAMATION WAS NOT PROVED
In paragraph 13 of the judgment, the Court
recorded:
"I hold that there is complete lack of
evidence to prove that the accused in any way defamed the complainant."
Accordingly, the teacher was acquitted of
the offence under Section 500 IPC.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JUDGMENT
The judgment reinforces the principle that
criminal defamation cannot be established merely through general allegations,
suspicion or hearsay.
It highlights the importance of precise
allegations, reliable evidence and effective cross-examination in criminal
trials.
The acquittal brings substantial relief to the
teacher after more than 13 years of criminal litigation.
The case was successfully defended by Advocate
Anuj Aggarwal, whose submissions concerning the absence of essential
evidence were reflected in the Court's findings.
ANUJ AGGARWAL & COMPANY
ADVOCATES
Jangpura Office
K-17, 2nd Floor,
Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi – 110014
Delhi High Court Chambers
483, Block-II, Lawyers Chambers,
Delhi High Court,
New Delhi – 110003
Mobile: +91 9891403206
Email:
anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com
anujaggarwalcompany@gmail.com
Website:
https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php
Judgment: S.K. Saxena v. Bharti Sharma,
Complaint Case No. 515362/2016, decided on 28 September 2026, JMFC-06, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi.
No comments:
Post a Comment