Anthoni Udayar v. Veluswami Thevar & Others

These two revision cases are closely connected. The petitioners are the same in both. They were convicted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Ramnad for an offence under s. 500 I.P.C, in C.C Nos. 253 and 257 of 1945 on his file and sentenced in each case to pay a fine of Rs. 20 each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks.

The charges against them in the two cases are founded on certain statements made by them in the written statement filed by them in C.C No. 5 of 1945 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Ramnad, in which case they were the accused. The material part of the written statement filed by them therein marked as Exhibit A is as follows:

Paragraph 14. P.W 2's father and his senior paternal uncle were accused along with Chettachamy Thevar, father-in-law of Mappillaisamy Thevar in a dacoity case, R.C No. 6 of 1916 filed by accused 2. P.W 3, Thirumal Kone's wife is being kept by Mappillaisamy Thevar for the past two years and she is given jewels worth Rs. 300 and two bulls and eight kalams of Paddy through P.W 2 every year. The said Chettachamy Thevar was keeping his wife's cousin Papathi and she is given ten Kurukkams of Kolangorvai.”

In C.C No. 5 of 1945. the petitioners were charged for the offence of rioting. It was a part of the case of the petitioners that the prosecution was at the instigation of Mappillaswami Thevar who is described in the written statement as a rich and influential man and the father-in-law of the Rajah of Ramnad. According to them, the prosecution witnesses were partisans and satellites of that man. Though it may not be very important, it may be mentioned that the magistrate who tried the case found that the allegation of the accused that Mappillaiswamy Thevar and his agents were at the back of the complaint was substantiated to some extent. Whether this be so or not, the petitioners obviously believed that the case was foisted on them at the instance of Mappillaiswamy Thevar and his agents.

In C.C No. 253 of 1945 the complainant is one Velusami Thevar, a near relation of Chettaswami Thevar, who appears to have died in 1941. In the other case C.C No. 257 of 1941 the complainant is Thirumal Cone, who was P.W 3 in C.C No. 5 of 1945.

Mr. Rangaswami Ayyangar learned Advocate for the petitioners in both the cases, contended that even assuming that the statements contained in paragraph 14 of the written statement referred to above were defamotory the statement nevertheless fell within exception 9 to S. 499 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioners were not liable to be convicted of the offence of defamation. To secure the protection of that exception it is necessary that the imputation should have been made in good faith and for the protection of the interest of the person making it or of any other person or for the public good. There is no question here of the imputation being for the public good. It is therefore necessary to determine whether the imputation was made in good faith and for the protection of the interest of the petitioners.

It appears to me to be clear that the statements in question were made for the sole purpose of discrediting the witnesses for the prosecution and in particular P.W 3. As it was an integral part of the case for the accused that the prosecution against them was foisted on them at the instance of Mappillaiswamy Thevar, any statements connecting any of the prosecution witnesses intimately with Mappillaiswamy Thever and his agents should be deemed to be statements made for the protection of the interests of the petitioners. It was urged by Mr. Krishna Rao for the complainants in both the cases that the fact that Thirumal Kone's wife is alleged to have been kept by Mappillaiswami Thever does not necessarily lead to the inference that P.W 3 would be amicably disposed towards Mappillaiswami Thevar. Whether this is so or not would really depend upon the circumstances, If Mappillaiswami Thevar, as he was alleged to be, was a rich and influential man and highly connected and Thirumal Kone could obtain substantial material benefit by reason of his wife's intimacy with Mappillaiswami Thevar, the allegation that on that account Thirumal Kone is likely to be under the influence of Mappillaiswami Thevar is not extravagant. It is true that Chettachami Thevar was himself dead at the time the statement was made but Chettachami Thevar was no other than the father-in-law of Mappillaiswami Thevar and if he was keeping Thirumal Kone's wife's relation and Thirumal Kone's wife herself was the concubine of Mappillaiswami Thevar it cannot be said that the accused were making totally irrelevant statements for their purpose which really was to completely discredit P.W 3 and P.W 2 to a certain extent, through whom it was alleged that the jewels and bulls and paddy were given to Thirumal Kone's wife. The statements therefore must be held to have been made for the protection of the interests of the petitioners.

It next falls to be considered whether the imputations were made in good faith. I do not think that there can be any rule of thumb to determine in any particular case whether an imputation is made in good faith or not. Good faith is relative to a great extent and must be determined by the circumstances under which the imputation was made, the social status and level of education of the persons making the imputation and their reasoning capacity. The magistrate has held that it has not been established that the allegations contained in the statement made by the petitioners are true. That my be so. But that finding is not tantamount to an absence of good faith. Having regard to the evidence led on behalf of the defence, it cannot be said that there were no fact at all from which persons in the position of the petitioner could not reasonably have formed an impression that there was intimacy between Thirumal Kone's wife and Mappillaiswami Thevar and likewise between Papathi and Chettachami Thevar. It cannot be said that the imputations were so reckless that good faith must be deemed to have been totally absent. The petitioners were persons who were not well educated. They were faced with a criminal prosecution for rioting, a serious charge, and it was not without reason that they also suspected that the whole case had been foisted by a powerful man like Mappillaiswami Thevar. In such circumstance any imputation that they made to attack the credibility of one or other of the prosecution witnesses must be held to have been made in good faith.

The statements therefore would fall within the ninth exception to S. 499 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioners cannot be convicted of an offence under S. 500 I.P.C

The convictions and sentences are hereby set aside and the petitioners in both the cases are acquitted. The fines, if paid, will be refunded.

N.T.RConviction set aside