CHINTHA KANNALAH Vs. GADI GATTUMALLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions judge, Khammam recommending quashing of the convictions of the accused 1 and 3 in CC. No. 32 of 1970 on the file of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Bhadrachalam. The complainant and the five accused in the case are members of Sale Community. A-1 is the caste-head. On a report given by A-3 that the son of the Complainant and his son-in-law committed theft of certain gold ornaments of A-3's mistress, a caste panchayat was held by A-1, A-2. A-3, A-4, A-5 and others. At the panchayat the son and son in-law of the complainant denied having committed any theft. The panchayatdars imposed fine of Rs 50/ - but the son and son-in-law of the complainant refused to pay the fine. A-1 thereupon declared that the complainant's son and son-in law were excommunicated from the Sale caste. All the five accused communicated to the other members of the caste that the complainant's family has been ex-communicated. As a result of the communication the members of the Sale Community stopped all social intercourses with the complainant.

(2.) Holding that there was no proof ot any active participation in the pan- chayat or of their having communicated to others the ex-communication of the complainant, the trial Magistrate acquitted the accused 2, 4, and 5, He, however, convicted, the caste head A-1 and A-3 who gave the report of theft against the complainant's son and son-in-law, of an offence of defamation and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-. The Sessions judge, Khammam made this reference being of the view that the action of the convicted accused does not amount to an offence in so far as it is protected by exception 9 of Section 499 I.P.C.

(3.) Even though the Constitution does not recognise caste, actions done in pursuance of caste custom are treated by the Courts as actions done in good faith and the publication of ex-communication of a person out-casted by the caste panchayat for a social offence is held by the courts not to amount to defamation, the same having been covered by exception 9 of Section 499 I. P. C. It does not, however, appear that the action of the accused in the instant case is covered by the exception. The facts are clear that when a panchayat was first held for the admission of A-3's mistress Into the Sale community, the complainant or any other members of his family did not attend the panchayat, evidently In protest of the proposed action of admitting A-3's mistress. Subsequently A-3 made an allegation of theft of gold jewels against the complainant's son and son-in law. On this report of A-3 a panchayat was held. The evidence shows that the panchayat was not confined only to the caste-people. A headconstable of Police and members of other communities were also present. It is in this panchayat that A-1 as head of the Sale Community arbitrarily directed the complainant's son and son-in-law to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- each. They refused to pay the fine. Their refusal is perfectly justified. When they so refused A-1 declared that the complainant's family is out-casted from the Sale community. A caste panchayat can no doubt deal with caste usages and customs but it has certainly no jurisdiction to decide other cases like theft and impose any penalty such as loss of caste on any members of the community who refused to obey the unauthorised and illegal direction of the caste-heads. The evidence adduced by the complainant discloses that A-1 and A-3 were actuated by ill will and malice in ex-communicating the complainant's family and publishing the same to others, at a panchayat which is not strictly a caste panchayat in so for as it was participated by several persons of other castes. The accused I and 3, under the cirmust- ances, cannot escape iibaillcy and they have been rightly convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The reference made by the learned Sessions Judge is therefore rejected.