GAYARAM Vs. SHANTI KUNWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GAYARAM, Shivlal and Narad were prosecuted by Smt. Shanti Kunwar under section 500/120-B, Penal Code, for defamation and conspiracy. All the three were convicted under section 500, Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 /- each; in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence of fine to Rs. 250 /- each, or, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each.

(2.) SMT. Shanti Kunwar had, earlier, filed a complaint in the Court of the Magistrate, 1st Class, Sarangarh, against one Lodha Panika under sections 323, 342 and 354, Penal Code (Criminal Case No. 93/1959). In that Case, she alleged that the accused Lodha outraged her modesty by pulling off her Sari and holding her by hand at a public place and also beat her and kept her in wrongful confinement. In that case, Gayaram, Shivlal and Narad (revision petitioners) were produced as defence witnesses. They made statements to the effect that SMT. Shanti Kunwar had not only intimacy with Lodha but also had by her conduct and expression declared herself to be his concubine. SMT. Shanti Kunwar is a widow and is possessed of 17 acres of land. The witnessess were not believed by the trial Court in that case and Lodha Panika was found guilty of all the offences and was sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment on each count, vide Ex. P -1

(3.) IT is then urged for the petitioners that they are entitled to the benefit of exception 9 to section 499, Penal Code. In my opinion, this contention too must be rejected at once. In order that the accused may avail himself of this exception, he must show that the imputation was made in good faith and that it was made for the protection of the interest of the maker or of some other person or for the public good. Their story that it was the complainant who told them that she had become a keep of Lodha having been disbelieved and the learned counsel being unable to show that any other enquiry was made by the accused to ascertain whether she had become a concubine of Lodha, it cannot be said that they made the imputation in good faith. Nothing is said to be done in good faith which is done or believed without due care and attention.