KASHI RAM Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kashi Ram has come here in revision from his conviction by a Magistrate of the First Class for an offence under Section 500, I.P.C. The conviction was uphold by the Sessions Judge. Kashi Ram was a plaintiff in a civil suit where the basis of his claim was that Sheoraj was not the daughter's son of Prithi Singh but was the child of some other woman and Prithi Singh's daughter Mt. Bishan Devi pretended that Sheoraj was her own child. The plaintiff was examined as a witness on 18th March and in his statement he elaborated a long story of inquiries made by Mt. Bishan Devi of a likely boy to be smuggled in as her own and finally, the choice falling on a son of ML Jamna of Amritsar. He stated that three women were approached, one was Bal Mukand's wife another Mt. Jamna of Amritsar and a third Mt. Jaggo's husband's sister. This was in examination-in-chief when his own counsel was examining him. He further elaborated how Mt. Jamna's boy had to be smuggled in. He said that Bal Makund's wife gave birth to a female child which could not be taken, and Mt. Jaggo's husband's sister had a miscarriage (the word used in the record of the evidence is abortion), so Mt. Jamna's child who happened to be a boy was the one taken advantage of. The defamation alleged against the applicant Kashi Ram is with reference to his statement that Mt. Jaggo's husband's sister had a miscarriage. It turned out that the girl, the daughter of one Ram Karan Das, was only a child of 12 and not married. Kashi Ram was thereupon prosecuted for defaming the girl. In this Court it was argued: (1) that the statement did not come within the definition of defamation given in Section 499, I.P.C., and (2) that the statement was privileged under Section 132, Evidence Act.

(2.) It was admitted, as it could not be otherwise after the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Emperor V/s. Ganga Prasad I.L.R. 29 All. 685,. that a witness did not have complete privilege when he made a statement in the witness-box. It was sought to keep the statement out of the definition of defamation on the ground that Kashi Ram himself knew nothing at all about the matter of this woman, that he had received information from one Kishori and that he merely made statements at random without any intention of harming the reputation of any person. I have not examined the record myself, but I was told by Mr. Saila Nath that Kishori denied having given any information to Kashi Ram. The statement, therefore, of Kashi Ram was merely imaginary. A long story was invented by him in order to bolster up his allegation that Sheoraj was not the son of Mt. Bishan Devi. In the definition intending is not the only circumstance of mind of the offender that is included. It is further stated that it will be enough if the offender had knowledge or reasonable belief that such imputation would harm the reputation of any person. To give out that a woman had miscarriage without any knowledge whether she was married or not would amount to defamation because the person who makes the statement would have reasonable belief that such imputation would harm the reputation of the woman in case she was not married. In cross-examination Kashi Ram went to the length of making a reckless statement that he had no knowledge whether Mt. Jaggo's husband's sister was married or not. Obviously what he desired to detail was not an ordinary instance of a miscarriage by a married woman. He was prepared to give out that even if the woman was not married there was certainly a miscarriage. The statement would come within the definition because Kashi Ram being presumably a man of ordinary sense would know that such an imputation about a woman would harm her reputation.

(3.) Next we come to the provisions of Section 132, Evidence Act. Two matters are to he kept in mind: (1) That the matter about which the witness makes a statement is relevant to the matter in issue in any suit; and (2) that the witness was compelled to make the statement which is held to be defamatory.