NARAIN PANDE Vs. GAYA RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for malicious prosecution which was dismissed by the trial Court but decreed on appeal. It appears that the plaintiff respondents were prosecuted for having committed a dacoity on 22 March, 1931 and though the police submitted a charge sheet against them they were discharged by the Magistrate on 25 May 1931, Subsequently they brought the present suit against the appellants claiming damages from them on the ground that the latter had conspired to implicate them in a false case out of malice.

(2.) The short point which is urged on behalf of the appellants in the appeal is that there is no evidence to prove that the criminal proceedings against the plaintiffs were, to use the words of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Balbhadar Singh V/s. Budri Sah A.I.R.1926.P.C. 46, invented and instigated by the appellants. It may be stated here that the first information upon which the police started the investigation of the dacoity was lodged by a chaukidar, the names of the dacoits not being mentioned therein. The police officer however who investigated the case being satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out against the respondents submitted a charge sheet. This was the origin of the proceedings against the plaintiffs.

(3.) The obvious flaw in the plaintiffs case is that they have neither tendered in evidence the deposition of the defendants nor have they examined the investigating officer. Thus there is no proof on the record either of the actual statements made by the defendants before the police or of the fact that it was as a result of the statement made by them that the police submitted a charge sheet in the case. The plaintiffs however attempted to prove by direct evidence that the defendants had conspired to bring a false charge against them and the witnesses examined by them went to the length of stating that they had actually heard certain conversations held among the defendants which were sufficient to establish the charge of conspiracy. These witnesses however were totally discredited by the trial Court and no reference has been made to their statements by the learned Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal from its judgment.