M SAKUNTALA RAI Vs. GORLE SURYANARAYANA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff instituted a suit for grant of damages for malicious prosecution against the defendant.

(2.) The brief facts in the plaint are: Plaintiff was the President of the Panchayat Samithi, Ranastalam; for over twelve years and owning considerable property. He was the 8th accused in S C 60/76 on the file of the Addl, Assistant Sessions Jugde, Srikakulam. The defendant, who was the B D O, Ranastalam, was the defacto complainant in the sessions case. The defendant made her daughter, Saritha and other official subordinates to give false statements before the police and also before the Court that all the accused, including the plaintiff, hatched a scheme to do away with the defendant and in furtherance thereof they attacked the defendant on the night of 23-4-76 at about 11-00 pm, in her quarters. The defendant later made her daughter Saritha to identify the plaintiff in an identification parade conducted as one of the culprits, though in fact Saritha knows him even earlier. There was never any harricane lamp in the quarters of the defendant to enable Saritha to sse the culprits in that light and that the prosecution was a malicious ons due to the previous enemity and grudge between the plaintiff and the defendant, The plaintiff and his family members suffered untold mental agony and anguish on account of the prosecution and it lowered down his prestige in the society. Therefore, the plaintiff claimed an amount of Rs. 3,500/- towards expenses and Rs. 16.500/- towards solatium for loss of his reputation, thereby making a total amount of Rs. 20,000/-.

(3.) The defendant filed a written statement denying the plaint allegations and stating that she gave a report, Ex. A-1 to the S H O, Ranasthalam, as she was assaulted and injured by the culprits. She had set out in Ex. A-l what all happened and also gave the names of probable suspects. The police on their own investigation having satisfied about the evidence launched the prosecution. Therefore, if the police failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the report of the defendant cannot be said to be without reasonable and probable cause and that does not vest the plaintiff with any right to initiate the action for malicious prosecution. The defendant narrated the grounds for her suspicion against the plaintiff by stating that one Bharathi was appointed as Gramasevak by the plaintiff and he refused to replace her by a panel candidate inspite of instructions and the defendant in accordance with the directives of her superiors replaced Bharathi on 27-2-76 by a panal candidate without yielding to the pressures of the plaintiff to delay the implementation of the directive. Having been enraged of this the plaintiff gathered some disgruntled minor officials of the Block and created situations of terror compelling the defendant to make reports to the Collector, Ex. B-2 and Ex. B-3. It is denied that the defendant had any hand in the statements of the witnesses before the police or their evidence before the Court. As regards Saritha, it is stated that she deposed what she knew and what she saw, and if the Court was not able to fully rely on her testimony that does not disprove the truth ful character of her evidence. The defendant in Ex. A-l report stated that her daughter Saritha would be able to give the full description of the culprits. With regard to the harricane lamp; it is stated that the lamp was there in the quarters even at the time she took charge as B D 0, and continued to be so till the incident, There is absolutely no malice on the part of the defendant and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.