Charanji Lal vs Dev Raj Kalra

Gokal Chand Mital, J.—S.P. Goyal, J. found conflicting views of many other High Courts in regard to the matter as to whether a statement made to the police during interrogation expressing suspicion against a person concerning a report of theft would be a privileged document or would be subject to qualified privilege. Since there was no decision of this Court, the matter was referred to be decided by a Division Bench: This is how the appeal has been placed before us.

After going through the detailed facts, we are of the opinion that the point referred does not arise in this case, as would be clear from the facts which would be detailed in the latter part of the judgment. Accordingly, we refrain from going into the question lest it is said that our, decision is, obiter.

The parties belong to the same village. The plaintiff is a big landlord as well as an Advocate. On 7th August, 1972 the defendant lodged an F.I.R. No. 85 that his she buffalo was stolen. In the F.I.R. he did not name any person. When the police went to the village for investigation, there the defendant expressed his suspicion against the plaintiff When the police went for further investigation on the basis of the statements of the defendant to question the plaintiff and other villagers, at that time the defendant stated before a large-gathering that plaintiff was not only (sic) Annas thief but was 18 Annas thief. After investigation the matter was dropped by the police. On the basis of the later statement that the plaintiff was out and out thief he filed a civil suit to claim Rs. 5000/- as damages, on account of defamation from the defendants.

The trial Court came to the conclusion that the statement made in the gathering that the plaintiff was more than 100% thief amounted to defamation and decreed the suit and awarded Rs. 2700/-as damages.

On defendant''s appeal, the findings were uphold but the amount was reduced to Rs. 1550/-. This is defendant''s second appeal.

The courts below have not decided the case on the basic of any statement made by the defendant before the police such statements are recorded in the police diary u/s 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The plaintiff has produced witnesses who were present in the gathering on the second occasion to depose that the defendant stated that the plaintiff was not only 16 Annas but 18 Annas thief. If the matter had rested on the earlier statement that he had suspicion on the plaintiff then the point may have been different. Both the Courts below have accepted the statements of the witnesses to the effect that the defendant made the statement before them in a gathering that the plaintiff was 18 Annas thief. This finding of the Courts below is based on evidence and is binding on us in second appeal On this finding no question of law arises and we find no infirmity in the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court in granting damages to the extent of Rs. 1550/-. If there had been an appeal of the plaintiff, we may have enhanced the amount on the peculiar facts of this case.

For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is dismissed with costs.