Judgment

R L Narasimham, C J

[1] This is a revision petition against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge of Bhawanipatna, maintaining the conviction of the petitioners under Section 500 I P. C. and the sentence of fine of RS. 60/- passed on each of them by a First Class Magistrate of Nawapara.

[2] The six petitioners are all Thelis living in village' Jinjera, P. S. Jank, in Nawapara Sub-division of Kalahandi District. In Baisakh of 1954 the marriage of the niece of one Udiram Sahu (P. W. 2) of Dumirpani village, in P. S. Jank, with the son of one Sakhi Chand Sahu (P. W. 3) of Jinjera took place. . The said Sakhi Chand is the Sammandhi of the complainant Biswambar Sahu. Along with the 'Baraf party of Sakhi Chand the complainant Biswambar Sahu and other relations of his went to Dumirpani, to the house of Udiram Sahu for the purpose of the marriage. It was learnt that a letter (marked X) had been sent to Udiram Sahu by the petitioner in which it was alleged that the complainant Biswambar had been outcasted by his caste people and also by the people of his basti for about two and a half years.

Udiram Sahu naturally got very much perturbed on receiving this letter inasmuch as, if the allegations contained in it were true, it might mar the marriage celebrations. Hence he insisted on Sakhi Chand depositing with him a sum of Rs. 20/- as advance, for meeting any contingency that might arise. Subsequently another meeting of the caste panchayet was held in. which also it appears that the allegation that he complainant was outcasted for assaulting a Gond woman was found to be true. In consequence of this decision the complainant lost the services of the village barber and the village dhoby and was put to much humiliation by being boycotted by his villagers. Hence he brought a criminal ease against the petitioners for an offence under Section 500 I, P. C.

[3] The main defence of the petitioners was that the allegations contained in the letter (marked X) were true, that the complainant had been boycotted by his villagers on account of his having assaulted a Gond woman and that they in good faith sent the letter to Udiram Sahu on the eve of the marriage so that the marriage celebrations may not be marred if this matter came to light in the midst of these celebrations. They claim that their letter was covered by the 9th and 10th exceptions to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. They also examined several defence witnesses to prove the assault by the complainant on the Gond woman in 1952 and his subsequent ex-communication from society.

[4] The trial court disbelieved the defence witnesses examined to prove the truth of the allegations contained in the letter (marked X). He therefore thought that the petitioner did not act in good faith and as such the 9th and 10th exceptions to Section 499 , 1. P. G. would not apply.

[5] The lower appellate Court however misconceived the law on the subject. He did not critically examine the evidence of defence witnesses with a view of ascertaining whether in fact the complainant had been ex-communicated by his own castemen sometime in 1952 on account of his assaulting a Gond woman. He thought that even if the accusations made in the letter (marked X) were true it would still amount to defamation unless it could be shown that the letter was sent for the good of the person to whom it was conveyed or for the public good. In this view of the law he did not carefully examine the evidence of the defence witnesses but held that the petitioners failed to prove their bona fides and that their action would not be covered by any of the exceptions to Section 499 , I. P. C.

[6] The lower appellate Court has clearly committed an error. The petitioners are not busybodies gratuitously interfering with the affairs of other persons. The complainant himself admitted in cross-examination that the petitioners are the Mukhias of the Thelis of the village. Udiram Sahu (P. W. 2) is also a leader of the Thelis of Dumirpan