HADIBANDHU BEHERA Vs. BANAMALI SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the judgment of a first Class Magistrate of Angul, convicting the petitioner under Section 500 I. P.C. and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.50/-; in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(2.) The petitioner is said to be the headman ot the Theli community in a small area in Angul Subdivision. The complainant Banamali Sahu is also a Theli residing in village Telibuin in that Subdivision. He charged the petitioner, along with several other persons, with having committed the offence of defamation by making certain imputations against him and by out-casting him from Theli society. The incident was said to have taken place on 8-11-1958 at Telibhuin. According to him his wife was taken away by his father-in-law to his house and was not sent back and thereupon he applied to the petitioner, Hadibandhu Behera (who is the headman of their community) to call for a Punchayati and decide the matter, Accordingly a Punchayati was convened on 7-11-58 (which was a Friday) but his wife and Father-in-law did not attend the meeting and then it was postponed to the next day 8-11-58 (which was a Saturday). At the latter meeting the petitioner was said to have demanded Rs. 5/-from the complainant but when he refused to pay the same he ordered his excommunication from the caste. The complainant further alleged that at the direction of the petitioner some pamphlets ex-communicating him from the community were written by Kirtan Singh one of the accused persons in the lower court and then distributed in the locality.

(3.) The plea taken by the petitioner and the otlier co-accused was that the complainant was not out-casted but he, of his own accord, sought the intervention of the petitioner and the leading members of the community for the purpose o? deciding his marital dispute with his wife. At that 'meeting, the petitioner asked) the complainant to pay a flue of Rs. 5/- for his transgression of the caste-rule on a previous occasion and said that unless that sum was paid the Punchayati would not decide his dispute with his wife. Thereupon the complainant left the meeting in an angry mood and the Punchayat also refused to decide his dispute. It was alleged that this incident was exaggerated and the story o? excommunication was put forward fay the latter.