Journalist K publishes an article in a prominent newspaper stating: "During his lifetime, Politician L repeatedly engaged in massive financial corruption and bribery involving undisclosed offshore accounts to siphon public funds." Politician L died five years before the publication. Politician L's family claims defamation. However, the journalist has access to documentary evidence (leaked confidential government files) suggesting the allegations are factually true. Under Section 356 of the BNS, 2023, which of the following correctly determines liability?

Explanation: Section 356 Explanation 1 of the BNS, 2023 explicitly provides: "It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives." This provision recognizes that while a deceased person cannot personally suffer reputational harm, the family members can suffer emotional and reputational harm. Under this explanation, two conditions must be satisfied for defamation against a deceased: (i) the imputation would have harmed the deceased's reputation if they were living; and (ii) the statement is intended to be hurtful to the family. Regarding truth as a defence: While truth can be a general defence under Section 356 (corresponding exceptions to defamation), the defence operates within specific parameters. The truth must be published "for the public good," not merely to disparage a family's honour. Additionally, the issue of whether documented governmental allegations about posthumous reputation constitute "public good" defence is a matter of judicial interpretation. The evidence of truth does not automatically absolve liability. Option (B) correctly identifies that imputations concerning deceased persons can constitute defamation under Explanation 1 if they target the family's feelings and reputation, making it the correct answer under competitive exam standards.