A person who merely gives information to the police or to a complainant, which leads to the prosecution of another person, cannot be held liable for damages for malicious prosecution.

P. CHANDRA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE appeal is brought by defendants and 3 in O. S. No. 43 of 1949 against the Decree and Judgment of the Subordinate Judge. Narasaraopet. In order to appreciate the points arising for determiantion in this case, it is necessary to trace briefly the background of this litigation. One Ramamma, the wife of defendant 1 died in October 1948. In connection with her death, a complaint was fikled by defendant with her death, a complaint was filed by defendant 1 and the same is marked as "ex B. 2" in this case. It was stated therein that Ramamma died as a result of homocidal violence, that two persons by name Badduri Chandra Reddi and Badduri Ramana Reddi (Appellants in this case) informed him that five persons (the present plaintiffs) were seen coming out of the backyard of the house of defendant 1 at about the time of the death of Ramamma. On receipt of this complaint, the Police investiated into the case, filed a charge sheet against these five person under s. 302 of the Penal Code and they were committed to Sessions at Guntur to take their trial for the offences with which they were charged. The case for the accused in that case (the plaintiffs herein) was that it was not as a result of violence that Ramamma died, but she sustained afracture of the skull by falling on a Cuddappah slab while she was carrying some grain to the granary. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the plea of the accused and acquitted them. It was also remarked by the Judge that the prosecution took advantage of the death on an old woman to make a false report against the accused therein. Consequent upon the acquittal of the acused therein, they have filed a suit for damages for malcious prosecution against the complainant, and the two persons who gave information to the complainant impleading them as defendant 1 to 3 respectively.

( 2 ) THE case for the plaintiffs as disclosed in the plaint is that on accountof enimity that existed between the plaintiffs on the one hand and the defendants on the other, they concocted a case of murder against them taking advantage of the death of Ramamma, that Ramamma who was suffering from biliousness had a fall in the laternoon on 9-10-1948, while attending to her domestic work and her head struck against a Cuddappah slab resulting in the fracture of her head. It is recited in the plaint that the defendant actuated by malice and without any reasonable or probable cause set the law in motion against the plaintiffs. A sum of Rs. 5,250. 00 was claimed as damages.

( 3 ) THE suit was contested by all the defendants denying that there was any conspiracy to give a false complaint against the plasintiffs. While defendant 1 stated that by reason of information which he received from defendant 2 and 3, he was led to believe that his wife died as a result of foul play by the plaintiffs and he merely mentioned his suspicion in the complaint, the case of defendants 2 and 3 was that they were not in any way responsible for the launching of the case, that informatioin given by them to defendant 1 was not without reasonable and probable cause, nor was there any malice. A plea was laso taken that the plaintiffs did not suffer any damage and, at any rate, the damages claimed were excessiver.

( 4 ) THE trial court dismissed the suit against defendant 1, but gave decree against defendant 2 and 3 for Rs. 3,250. 00. Rs. 750. 00 towards expenses of the litigation, and Rs. 2,500. 00 towards mental suffering of all the plaintiffs i. e. , at the rate of rs. 500. 00 for each. The learned Judge thought that the evidence on record did not justify the plea of the plaintiffs that Ramamma died as a result of an acciental fall and that her death was due to injuries inflicted on her head with a heavy object like a big stone or a big pounder. He also found against conspiracy amongs the defendants, to give a flase to report to the authorities concerned. In the opinion of the learned Judge no case was made out against defendant 1 becau

Click Here to Read the rest of this document