CHOTKAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave under Section 417(3) Cr. P. C., by a complainant from a judgment of an Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakh-pur, dismissing, on appeal, his complaint against the respondents for the offence of Section 500, I. P. C., and acquitting them. The material facts are as follows: Najmun Nisa, wife of Budhu respondent, obtained a decree for divorce from a Civil Court and Budhu preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal she lived with her parents in Gorakh-pur. Chotkan appellant knew her parents and used to help them by lending money. On 8-4-1958 Budhu respondent filed a complaint under Section 498, I. P. C., against Chotkan and others during the pendency of his appeal against the divorce decree. In the complaint he alleged that Najmun Nisa was enticed away by the appellant under her parent's and brother's abetment and was detaining her in order to commit adultery with her. An inquiry under Section 202, Cr. P. C., was held by a first class Magistrate, Sri Sajid AH, and Budhu examined himself and Gobri and Ramzan respondents. Budhu in his deposition deposed that Najmun Nisa's parents and brother made her over to the appellant for illicit intercourse, while Gobri and Ramzan deposed that though she was unwilling to go with the appellant she was forced to do so by her parents and brother and that the appellant caught her hand and seated her in a rickshaw and took her away. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint. Thereafter the complaint giving rise to this appeal was filed by the appellant charging the respondents with committing the offence of Section 500, I. P. C., by making statements defamatory to him in their depositions in the inquiry under Section 202, Cr. P. C.

(2.) The appellant examined himself, Rahim, brother of Najmun Nisa, and other witnesses who deposed that the allegations made by the respondents against the appellant in their depositions were false and harmed the reputation of the appellant. The respondents, who peaded not guilty, admitted having made the statements but denied that they committed the offence of Section 500, I. P. C., by making them and claimed the privilege under Section 132, Evidence Act. The trial Court convicted the respondents holding that the statements made by the respondents in their depositions were defamatory and did not come within any of the exceptions to Section 499, I. P. C., and that they were not entitled to the privilege under Section 132, Evidence Act.

(3.) On appeal the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents on the sole ground that a person who makes a defamatory statement as a witness in answer to a relevant question cannot be prosecuted under Section 500, I. P. C., because it would be against public policy to allow him to be prosecuted.