Section 356 BNS: No Rigid Rule On Witness Testimony At Cognizance Stage In Defamation Cases, Says Karnataka HC In Yatnal Case

Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde held that where an imputation is, on its face, "inherently capable of lowering the moral or intellectual character of the complainant", the Court may take cognisance and issue process on the statements of the complainant and witnesses who say his reputation has been lowered "in the estimation of others".

The Court framed the question before it in these terms, "At the stage of taking cognizance and issuing process for offences under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, whether Explanation-4 to Section 356(1) requires the complainant to examine a witness who would state that, in that person's own estimation, the complainant's reputation has been lowered; or would it suffice if the statement of a witness other than the complainant, or any other material indicates that the imputation has lowered the complainant's reputation in the estimation of others?"

Background

The complaint was filed on 18 July 2025 in respect of a statement allegedly made by Yatnal on 30 April 2025 on a channel named "Gadinada Kranti" and broadcast on YouTube.

By order dated 24 January 2026, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, took cognisance and directed issuance of summons. The operative portion of that order, extracted by the High Court, read, "Acting under Section 223 of the BNSS 2023, Cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (356(2) of BNS 2023) is taken as against the accused."

The Magistrate had referred to the transcript of the pen drive, the video clippings and the statements of two witnesses. Yatnal's revision against the order was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on 18 August 2026.

Before the High Court, Yatnal sought to set aside both orders and to quash the entire proceedings in PCR No. 11492/2025, invoking the Court's inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Advocate Dalwai Venkatesh, appearing for Yatnal, argued that the requirements of Explanation 4 to Section 499 IPC and Section 356 BNS were not met. He pointed out that the complainant's two witnesses had said his reputation was lowered, but had also said that the allegations were false.

It was urged that unless the person "in whose estimation the complainant's reputation is lowered makes a statement to that effect before the Court", Explanation 4 is not satisfied and cognisance cannot be taken.

Senior Advocate Ravi B. Naik, for Shivananda Patil, submitted that the accused had not disputed making the statements, that the statements were "per se defamatory" and that they had been widely circulated on social media. The complainant had cited three witnesses, of whom two had been examined and had said his reputation had gone down in the estimation of others.

He argued that since the statement was per se defamatory, the Magistrate need not insist at the stage of cognisance on a third person saying that the complainant's reputation had been lowered in that person's estimation.

Reading Explanation 4, the Court said a plain reading "does not necessarily mean that the expression 'in the estimation of others' would only mean in the estimation of the 'witnesses examined before the Court'."

It said, "The expression 'in the estimation of others' though refers to the persons in whose estimation the complainant's reputation must be lowered, does not, by itself, warrant that the particular person whose estimation is alleged to have been affected must invariably be examined as a witness at the stage of taking cognizance. The existence of the possible damage to the reputation, depending on the nature of the imputation and the material available, may be prima facie inferred from the circumstances surrounding the publication and the contents of the imputation itself."

The Court, however, added that "in a given case", the complainant "may be required to examine the person in whose estimation the complainant's reputation is lowered even at the stage of recording sworn statement."

The witnesses in this case had said that they themselves held a good opinion of the complainant, but that his reputation had been lowered in the estimation of others. The Court said such evidence could suggest two possibilities: that the witness personally heard "another person" say he no longer held the complainant in the same esteem, or that the witness learnt of that opinion through some other person.

On the first, the Court said the witness "is a direct witness to the making of that statement", but cautioned that "the mere fact that another person expressed such an opinion does not necessarily establish that the imputation lowered the complainant's reputation." On the second, it said, "the statement would be hearsay."

Acknowledging that the witnesses had "not given specific details of the other/s in whose estimation the complainant's reputation is lowered", the Court held that the fact that a witness heard such a statement "would be admissible but may not be conclusive proof of the fact stated."

The Court then explained how the nature of the imputation governs the Magistrate's approach, "In such situation, if the imputations are per se defamatory and lower the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person … the Court can tentatively form an opinion that the person's reputation might have been lowered in the estimation of others, for the purpose of taking cognizance or issuing the process."

Conversely, where the imputation "is not prima facie capable of lowering the complainant's reputation", the Court said a "mere assertion that the reputation of the complainant has been lowered in the estimation of others may not be sufficient", and the Magistrate "may require further material or the statement of an independent witness who would say that in his own estimation the complainant's reputation is lowered."

It held, "For the aforementioned reasons the expression 'in the estimation of others' in Explanation-4 to Section 499 of IPC or 356(1) of BNS cannot be construed as having mandated, that in every case at the stage of taking cognizance and issuing the process, that a witness other than the complainant must be examined and said witness must state that in his own estimation the complainant's reputation is lowered."

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in John Thomas v. Dr. K. Jagadeesan, noting that it held a per se defamatory statement relieves the complainant of the burden of showing that publication lowered his reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members of the public.

It also distinguished Jaideep Bose v. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited, where the Supreme Court set aside cognisance because the procedure under Section 202 of the Code had not been followed for accused residing outside jurisdiction. Here, the Court noted, the order was passed by a Special Designated Court, and "accused being the member of the legislative assembly cannot take a plea that he resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court in Bengaluru which issued the process." A pre-cognisance notice had also been issued to Yatnal and he had been heard.

On the Calcutta High Court's decision in Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, relied on heavily by the petitioner, the Court said that though that decision held there must be evidence of an independent witness that the complainant's reputation was lowered in such witness's estimation, "this Court is not persuaded to follow the said view for the reasons already recorded supra."

The Madras High Court's ruling in S. Ranganathan v. Radhakrishnan, on the need for an inquiry under Section 202 before cognisance, was held not to help the petitioner since the complainant and two witnesses had been examined, so "there is no procedural violation".

The Court also held that Manoj Kumar Tiwari v. Manish Sisodia and the coordinate bench decisions in Jayappa v. Shamegowda, S.P. Bobati v. Mahadev Virupaxappa Latti and M. Krishna Reddy v. N.R. Ramesh turned on the nature of the imputations in those cases, which were "way different" from the present one.

Having extracted the relevant portions of the Kannada statement, the Court held, "On perusal of the statement, there is no difficulty in taking a prima facie view that the statements cast serious aspersions on the complainant's integrity and character and are inherently capable of lowering the reputation of the complainant. Of course even if the allegations are true, whether the case falls under an exception can be considered by the Court."

The Court said the cognisance order "cannot be said to be erroneous. Because at this stage the Court need not consider whether the evidence is sufficient to convict the accused." It added, "Whether the public or any person believed the imputation to be true or whether the complainant's reputation was in fact lowered in the estimation of others, are the questions to be considered at the time of trial."

Conclusion

The Court summarised its view in four conclusions. First, at the stage of cognisance and issuing process, Explanation 4 "does not necessarily mandate the complainant to examine a witness other than the complainant to make a statement that the complainant's reputation is lowered in the estimation of 'said witness'." Second, whether such a statement is required "is dependent on nature of imputation and other materials and attendant circumstances."

Third, where the imputation is prima facie found "inherently capable of lowering the moral or intellectual character of the complainant, or projects him as a person of bad character or as having engaged in conduct generally considered disgraceful", the Court may take cognisance on the statements of the complainant and witnesses who say his reputation is lowered in the estimation of others. Fourth, where the imputation is not prima facie capable of lowering reputation, a mere assertion to that effect "may not be sufficient", and the Magistrate may require further material or the statement of a witness who would say that in his own estimation the complainant's reputation is lowered.

The petition was dismissed. The Court clarified that its observations "are not the opinion on the merits of the complaint and defence of the accused" and that "all contentions on merits are kept open to be adjudicated by the Trial Court."

Case Title: Sri. Basanagouda Ramanagouda Patil Yatnal v. Sri. Shivananda S. Patil

Bench: Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde

Order Date: November 11, 2026