THANGAVELU CHETTIAR Vs. PONNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Thangavelu has been convicted under S. 500 I. P. C. and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200 and out of the fine amount if realised Rs. 100 has been ordered to be paid to P. W. 1 as compensation under S. 545 (1), Cr. P. C.

(2.) THE petitioner described the complainant Ponnammal as (concubine) of P. W. 2, namasivaya Odayar in a plaint filed by him in S. C. No. 349 of 1963 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirukoilur. P. W. 1 (Ponnammal), complainant in this case, is an unmarried Brahmin woman aged thirty years and the statement of the petitioner in his plaint that she is the concubine of P. W. 2 is clearly defamatory. This is not disputed.

(3.) THE facts mentioned in ground No. 7 as reasonable grounds for the belief of the petitioner that P. W. 1 (Ponnammal) was the concubine of P. W. 2 Namasivaya odayar were considered by the courts below which negatived the contention of the petitioner. They found that P. W. 1 was an unmarried Brahmin girl and not a concubine of P. W. 2 (Namasivaya Odayar ). It appears from the judgment of the courts below that the petitioner relied on Exception 1 to Sec. 499 I. P. C. In fact, paragraph 12 of the appellate court's judgment shows that it was urged on behalf of the appellant (petitioner here) that it was sufficient if the accused had reason to believe that P. W. 1 was the concubine of P. W. 2. At the end of the paragraph, the appellate court has found that the appellant (petitioner here) had no reasonable reason to believe that P. W. 1 was the concubine of P. W. 2.