GAHRU RAM RAMKUMAR Vs. RAMBARAN THAKURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NON-APPLICANT No. 2 Rambaran filed a complaint in the Court of the Magistrate, 1st Class, Baikenthpur, under Sections 500 and 506 (second part) of the Indian penal Code against non-applicant No. 1 Gahruram, alleging that on 8-11-1955, gahruram met the complainant Rambaran on the road at village Mohara and defamed him by saying that his (complainant's) wife had practised witchcraft on his fields on account of which his crops had been spoiled, that when he would get the opportunity he would kill him and that he published this defamatory imputation in the village. The trial Court acquitted the accused-non-applicant No. 1 of the offence under Section 506, I. P. C. but convicted him of the offence under section 500 I. P. C. and sett-need him to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.

(2.) THE Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, has reported the case under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a recommendation that the conviction and the sentence of the non-applicant Gahruram be set aside on the ground that the imputation that the complainant Rambaran's wife was a witch and was practising witchcraft could not be defamatory of the complainant and consequently he was not competent to make the complaint as he could not be said to be a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of Section 198 of the Code of Criminal procedure.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the non-applicant No. 1 who appeared in, support of the reference contends that the imputation that the wife of the complainant was a witch and practised witchcraft could not he defamatory of the complainant and as that computation would be defamatory of Ramliaran's wife only, the complainant would not be a "person ag- grieved" and consequently was not competent to file the complaint. Reliance is placed on a decision of Chatiirvedi J- reported in Kamal Chand v. Amar chand, AIR 1952 Madh B 180 (A) wherein it has been laid down that where the wife was accused of theft, the husband cannot be deemed to have a legal grievance; for whatever pain of mind he may suffer from the slander of his wife, the injury caused to him is mediate or remote and not immediate or proximate, and further that such an imputation implied no imputation of personal misconduct of the husband. It was consequently held that under those circumstances, the husband was not a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of Section 198 of the code of Criminal Procedure and could not therefore file a complaint.