Bengaluru, August 25, 2025 – The XLII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Court in Bengaluru, presided over by Judge K.N. Shivakumar, acquitted V. Sunil Kumar, MLA of Karkala Constituency, on August 13, 2025, in a defamation case (C.C. No. 11709/2024) filed by Pramod Muthalik, founder and national president of Sri Rama Sene. The complaint, filed on April 6, 2024, under Section 190(A) read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleged defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), punishable under Section 500, for statements made during a public speech.

Case Background

Pramod Muthalik, a 67-year-old social activist and former head of Bajrang Dal’s southern states, claimed that V. Sunil Kumar, a 49-year-old Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA and former Karnataka minister, made defamatory remarks during a victory celebration on May 14, 2023, at Bandimut Bus Stand, Karkala, following the 2023 Karnataka Assembly Elections. Both contested the Karkala seat, with Kumar winning and Muthalik running as an independent. Muthalik alleged Kumar accused him of being a “deal master” who contested elections for money, orchestrating Hindu murders under the “Tiger Gang” pretext, and engaging in corrupt Hindutva activism. These statements, reportedly published in Vijayavani newspaper and telecast on TV9, were claimed to have harmed Muthalik’s reputation.

Court Proceedings

Muthalik, represented by advocate Manjunath S. Halwar, testified as PW1 and presented two witnesses: S. Bhaskaran (PW2, Sri Rama Sene Bengaluru unit president) and Amarnath (PW3, a businessman). He submitted seven documents, including a Vijayavani article (Ex.P1), a CD of the alleged TV9 telecast (Ex.P2), and a Section 65B certificate (Ex.P3). Kumar, represented by advocate VKM, pleaded not guilty, was granted bail, and denied the allegations under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. without presenting defense evidence.

The court evaluated whether Muthalik proved beyond reasonable doubt that Kumar’s statements on May 14, 2023, were defamatory with intent to harm his reputation, per Section 499 of IPC, which requires intentional imputation, publication to third parties, and reputational harm, as established in Mohd. Abdulla Khan v. Prakash K. (2018) and Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016).

Court Findings

1. Lack of Direct Evidence: The court noted that PW1, PW2, and PW3 were not present at the event and relied on media reports, rendering their testimony hearsay. No direct witnesses, such as attendees or media personnel, were examined to verify the statements.
2. Inadmissible Documentary Evidence:
   • The Vijayavani article (Ex.P1) was deemed secondary hearsay, inadmissible without testimony from the reporter or editor, per Laxmi Raj Shetty v. State of Tamilnadu (1988) and Samanth N. Balakrishna v. George Fernandez (1969).
   • The CD (Ex.P2) was inadmissible due to an invalid Section 65B certificate. Muthalik admitted in cross-examination that he lacked computer knowledge and did not personally copy the content, violating Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) requirements for electronic evidence authentication.
3. Failure to Prove Reputational Harm: Muthalik claimed reputational damage and mental suffering but provided no evidence of public suspicion or reduced participation in Sri Rama Sene activities. PW2 and PW3’s claims of mental distress lacked medical corroboration, and Muthalik’s continued public engagements indicated no significant harm.
4. Public Figure Defense: Kumar’s counsel argued that public figures like Muthalik must tolerate criticism, citing Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1956) and M. Krishna Reddy v. N.R. Ramesh (2024). The court agreed that Kumar’s alleged statements (e.g., “deal master” and “Tiger Gang” claims) were per se defamatory but found no evidence they were made or caused harm, negating the need to fully apply the public figure defense.

Judgment

The court ruled that Muthalik failed to prove Kumar made the alleged defamatory statements or that they caused reputational harm. Under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C., Kumar was acquitted of the offense under Section 500 of IPC, and his bail and surety bonds were canceled. The judgment, spanning 1 year, 4 months, and 7 days from filing to decision, was pronounced on August 13, 2025.

Read the Judgement here