MOHANLAL MURLIDHAR Vs. RAMCHARAN DEVIPRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by leave of this Court by the complainant Mohanlal against a decision of Mr. M. P. Bhatnagar, First Class Magistrate, Ujjain, acquitting the respondent of a charge under Section 500, I. P. C.

(2.) THE prosecution was started by Mohanlal in the following circumstances. Mohanlal had obtained a decree against a brother of the respondent Ramcharan and had initiated execution proceedings of the decree. On 20th September, 1954, mohanlal happened to go to one Malkhan Bahadur, who is employed as a Head time-keeper in Hira Mills and mentioned to him the matter of the decree that he had obtained against Ramcharan's brother. About this time Ramcharan came to the office of Malkhan Bahadur and on seeing the appellant Mohanlal, Ramcharan abused him in very vulgar terms and also made the statement that the appellant's wife had illicit connection with his brother against whom the appellant had obtained the decree. Thereafter the appellant fiied a complaint in the Court of the City Magistrate of Ujjain and tendered evidence in support of the allegations made by him. A charge under Section 500, I. P. C. was framed against the respondent Ramcharan. The accused denied having abused mohanlal or having made any statement defamatory of him. He stated that mohanlal and his witnesses had deposed falsely against him.

(3.) IN support of the complaint, Mohanlal gave his own evidence and examined malkhan Bahadur and Nanhekhan. They deposed to the abuses uttered by ramcharan and the statement he made in regard to the appellant's wife. The learned trial Magistrate took the view that the evidence of these witnesses was discrepant as to the exact words used by the accused and that it was, therefore, difficult to determine what exactly the accused said to the appellant. He then commented on the fact that though according to Mohanlal besides nanhekhan and Malkhan Bahadur, Shantibhai and other persons were also present at the time of the occurrence, only Nanhekhan had been produced. The learned judge also thought that the possibility of the complaint having been filed for the purpose of putting pressure on Ramcharan to pay the decretal amount could not be ruled out as the relations between the accused and the appellant were strained. On these grounds, the Magistrate came to the conclusion that the charge against the respondent had not been established beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, he acquitted Ramcharan.