JAINARAIN SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Jainarain Singh was convicted by the learned Subdivisional Magistrate of Hajipur of the offence of defamation and sentenced to undergo a term of four months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and in default of payment to undergo a further month's simple imprisonment. He appealed and his appeal was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Muzaffarpur. The latter affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to one of two months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50. In default of payment of this, he was sentenced to a further term of one month's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) The facts of this case are somewhat extraordinary. It appears that an anonymous letter was received by the Subdivisional Officer of Hajipur making serious allegations about one Bechunarain Singh of village Chak Mohammad. In this letter, it was said that Bechunarain Singh had found his servant boy Dhanukdhari in bed with his daughter Janki. This had made him so angry that he had caused Dhanukdhari to be severely assaulted in consequence of which the latter had died. There was a further allegation that Bechunarain Singh had caused the body to be removed to cover up all evidence of the crime. The Subdivisional Officer very naturally forwarded this petition to the Divisional Inspector of Police for immediate inquiry and report. On 1 October 1939 the Divisional Inspector examined the petitioner Jainarain. It is to be observed that Jainarain did not appear voluntarily before the Divisional Inspector but only appeared after the chaukidar had been sent to bring him to the police officer. Unfortunately the evidence is far from clear as to what happened when Jainarain appeared. The Divisional Inspector admits that he made no record of any question asked to Jainarain and further made no record of what Jainarain told him. In examination- in-chief the Divisional Inspector merely stated the substance of what Jainarain is alleged to have said to him; but in cross-examination he attempted to give verbatim the words used by Jainarain. The learned Judge has translated the words which the Divisional Inspector in cross-examination attributed to Jainarain and the words are as follows: I have come to know that Dhanukdhari was found in the same bed with the daughter of Bechunarain. Bechunarain and his men severely assulted him in consequence of which he died. After his death whereto they have caused disappearance of the dead body he has not come to know.

(3.) This statement, it is said, was made by Jainarain to the Divisional Inspector in the presence of some police officers and other persons. There is no doubt whatsoever that nothing had happened to Dhanukdhari as he appeared a few days afterwards hale and hearty without any trace of injury, on his body. Somehow or other Dr. Bechunarain was informed of the answer alleged to have been given to the police by Jainarain and consequently these proceedings were instituted. The Divisional Inspector in the witness box was at pains to assert that the inquiry which he was conducting was a confidential one. If that be so, it is somewhat strange that Dr. Bechunarain was given the precise form of words which Jainarain is alleged to have used. If this inquiry was originally a confidential one, some one appears to have been guilty of a breach of confidence by informing other persons concerned not only of the substance of the allegations made but also of the precise words. Be that as it may Dr. Bechunarain feeling himself aggrieved brought these proceedings. There can be no doubt that the original allegation made against Dr. Bechunarain in the anonymous letter was a very serious one. Happily the whole matter was cleared up and there is now not the slightest reflection against the character and integrity of Dr. Bechunarain.