In Re : Aitoo

Shivdayal, J.—This is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, inviting attention of this Court to a letter written to him by Raghunath singh and subscribed by six other persons who are contemners before us.

In the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, Sessions Trial No. 120 of 1961 (State v. Madkami Aitu) was pending u/s 302 of the Penal

Code. It was fixed for judgment on 4-12-1961. In the meantime, the Additional Sessions Judge received on 30-11-1961 a letter dated 14-11-1961 by post. It reads as follows:

Notice was issued by this Court to the contemners to show cause why they should not be punished. Shri Singhai counsel for the contemners has tendered an unqualified apology expressing "very much regret for the blunder they committed". It is also stated in the apology that "they are illiterate Adivasis and do not know things. They have only learnt to sign their names in adult educational classes". There is a further undertaking that they shall not repeat the wrong which they committed.

The impugned letter undoubtedly constitutes contempt of Court. The letter was addressed to the trial Judge. It contains allegations that the accused Aitu had killed his elder brother Mangdu and two other villagers. who were innocent. It is also remarked that in this village there was another murder of Thokdu at the hands of Masa son of Aitu, but the accused was acquitted, and then there is an observation that acquittal of culprits encourages others to commit murders and other heinous offences. Furthermore, there is a threat that in case Aitu was acquitted, there was likelihood of his being killed and in that event also the murderers would be acquitted. It is undoubted Jaw that publication is contempt of Court if it seeks to prejudice the Court against any party to a proceeding or against State, or if it seeks to influence the Court in favour of a party to the proceedings. Here, the letter was clearly calculated to influence the trial Judge and also to prejudice him against the accused. We, therefore, hold all the seven contemners guilty of contempt of the Additional Sessions Judge''s Court.

Ordinarily, we would have taken a very serious view on the question of sentence. For the contempt of such a grave nature, an apology can hardly purge the contempt. However, having regard to the fact that the contemners are aboriginals and they belong to a society where ignorance and illiteracy pervades, and also having in view that the contemners are rependent, we award them only a nominal sentence. Each of the seven contemners shall pay a fine of Re. 1/-(Rupee one).