SHEO KARAN LAL Vs. BANDI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision on behalf of Sheokaran Lal who has been convicted for an offence under Section 500, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rupees 100, in default three months rigorous imprisonment. For some reason or other, serious differences have arisen between the petitioner and his brother Sheoprasad Lal. A number of cases--civil and criminal--have been or are being fought out between these two brothers who belong to a respectable family. A proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P.C., was pending some time ago between the petitioner and his brother with regard to possession of a house. In that case the petitioner was examined as a witness on 11 August 1941. His evidence in chief was to the effect that as a result of a partition he was living separately from his brother and that he got the western portion of the disputed house which was the residential house of the family. He also deposed that on 2nd June 1941, when he sent his servant Hira with masons and labourers for repairing the house they were obstructed by the second party and his men. This led to the drawing up of a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P.C. On 12 August 1941, cross-examination of the petitioner began in these proceedings before Mr. V. Jha, a Deputy Magistrate. In the beginning of the cross-examination the petitioner was asked as to what his age was when Baiju Babu died. He said he was nine years old. Then in answer to a further question he stated that his present aunt was his uncle's only wife and she was 17 or 18 years at that time. He was adopted by Baiju Babu in 1973-74. A number of questions were put to this witness which appeared to make veiled suggestions about his relationship with his adoptive mother, namely, his aunt. The witness was then asked as to his relationship with his wife. It is desirable to quote the answers: I am on good terms with my wife. There was never any trouble about her coming from Bombay. Once she came about two years ago with a servant. In 1939 she was sent to Bombay and after staying there for four or five months she was sent back through a servant of my father- in-law. She was sent from here through a servant of my father-in-law. In 1939 when my wife returned from Bombay, she came and stayed in the old house. It is not a fact that she was not allowed to enter the old house, where I am living and that she had to seek shelter in the new house. Rs. 50,000 belonging to my aunt is deposited with my father-in- law in my name about 15 days after the partition as it war. not deposited in the name of his Samdhin. Over this sum of money, there was no trouble between myself and my father-in-law. It is not a fact that in respect of my refusal to admit my wife in my house and also regarding the trouble of Rs. 50,000 my father in-law had written any letter to Shiva Prasad Babu and that for this, I bear any grudge against Shiva Prasad Babu. (2) I had never tried to marry for the second time when there was trouble regarding my wife or Rupees 50,000. I know Pandit Kanhaiya Lall (P.W. 7) since 15 or 16 years. I never attempted to have a second marriage through him. It is not a fact that Shiva Prasad Babu objected to my second marriage and hence I have grudge against him.

(2.) It is impossible for me to conceive why the learned Deputy Magistrate allowed these most objectionable and irrelevant questions to be put in a caws under Section 145, Criminal P.C. The Deputy Magistrate, a witness in the defamation caw), refused to disclose the reason for allowing these questions as the Section 145 case was still pending. It is clear that the witness was being closely cross- examined regarding his relationship with his wife. The clear implication was that his wife was not of good character and he was refusing to live with her and was actually contemplating a second marriage. While answering this series of questions, the petitioner is said to have stated that he was not pulling on well with his wife and father-in-law (and this was his explanation as to the cause of ill- feeling with his brother) as he had illicit connexion with the wife of Sheoprasad Lal Seth. The relevant words are: "Sheoprasad Lal ka wife se anuchit sambandh tha." On 18 October 1941, a complaint was filed by one Bundi Prasad as the servant of Gilki Bai, wife of Sheoprasad Lal Seth complaining that she had been defamed by the aforesaid answer given by the petitioner in cross-examination. The petitioner was accordingly summoned under Section 500, Indian Penal Code.

(3.) His defence was that he has not defamed his brother's wife, bat that in the course of his cross-examination under Section 145, Criminal P.C., proceedings on behalf of Sheoprasad Lal his pleader put highly insulting questions to him about his wife and mother, that the questions were deliberately false, insulting, scandalous and irrelevant, that the pleaders on behalf of the petitioner protested that these questions should not be allowed to be asked, but the objection was not listened to. This exasperated the petitioner, and he could not tolerate the insult any more.