IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 237/2006 (Old No. 29D/1999) Vijendra Singh Rawat ………Appellant Versus State of U.P. & Another …….Respondents Mr. Vijay Khanduri, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Shivanand Bhatt, Brief Holder, for the State. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate, for the respondent no. 2. 20th December, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.10.1999, passed by Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1783/1996, Vijendra Singh Rawat v. Smt. Hindlata Rawat, whereby the learned trial court has acquitted the accused/respondent no. 2 Smt. Hindlata Rawat from the charge of offence punishable under Section 500 IPC holding that she has not committed any offence of defamation as defined under Section 499 IPC. 2. Feeling disgruntled with the aforesaid judgment and order, Vijendra Singh Rawat sought special leave of the Court to file this appeal, which was allowed by the Allahabad High Court vide order dated 27.10.2006. Subsequently, after reorganisation of the State of U.P., this appeal has been transferred to this High Court and has come up for hearing today before this Court. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, it transpires that Vijendra Singh Rawat was a teacher in a secondary school. He used to reside at 8 Bengali Mohalla, Dehradun. He married twice. His eldest son from his first wife used to reside along with Vijendra Singh Rawat. Smt. 2 Hindlata Rawat is his second wife and three children born from this wedlock. The name of the children are Km. Meenakshi (aged 7 years), Km. Anamika (aged 6 Years) and a son Rahul (aged 5 years). Having passed a couple of years blissfully, differences cropped up between the couple and their wedded life could not proceed amicably. The relations between the duo became sour on account of the miseries onslaughted by the complainant Vijendra Singh Rawat in sundry ways. So, Smt. Hindlata Rawat, who was 27 years old at the time of incident, lodged an FIR on 28.7.1988 complaining the atrocious and inhuman attitude of her husband Vijendra Singh Rawat. She alleged that her husband was very high-handed towards her as well as her two aforenamed minor daughters. He used to tyrannically beat her and strived to commit rape on her two minor daughters, who were aged 7 and 6 years respectively. Her husband, after making her two daughters bare, applied mustard oil feigning of their massage and then endeavoured to commit this abhorable crime as stated above. Hearing the screams of her daughters, she saved them from cruel clutches of Vijendra Singh Rawat. She apprehended her security at stake from eldest son of Vijendra Singh Rawat begotten from his first wife. She further alleged that her husband was in the habit of forcing her to write something objectionable by beating her and used to keep her confined in the locked premises. 4. The police got Smt. Hindlata and her two adolescent daughters medically examined by the Doctors. After conclusion of the investigation chargesheet was submitted against Vijendra Singh Rawat under Section 376 IPC. 3 5. The case was tried by Additional Sessions Judge III, Dehradun, who after having gone through the evidence, oral and documentary, acquitted Vijendra Singh Rawat from the charge of said offence. Subsequent thereto, Vijendra Singh Rawat prosecuted Smt. Hindlata Rawat for the offence of Section 499/500 IPC alleging that on account of launching of aforesaid prosecution against him by Smt. Hindlata, his reputation was severely and grossly affected in the eyes of his companions and other staff of the school. The allegations made by Smt. Hindlata defamed him in the entire society. So, he filed the Complaint Case No. 1783/1996 against Smt. Hindlata, which was tried by Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun, and that case too ended in acquittal of Smt. Hindlata vide the impugned judgment and order dated 1.10.1999. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the impugned judgment & order, this Court is of the view that the appeal filed by Vijendra Singh Rawat is totally meritless. It does not have any substance, and the learned Magistrate has rightly relied upon the explanation no. 4 of Section 499 IPC, which reads as under: “Explanation 4.—No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.” 4 7. The learned Magistrate has also relied upon the Eighth Exception and Ninth Exception of Section 499 IPC, which read as under: “Eighth Exception.—Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person.—It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation. Ninth Exception.—Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other’s interests.—It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.” 8. Lodging of an FIR by Smt. Hindlata Rawat against her husband Vijendra Singh Rawat was not unusual in the circumstances created by him as stated above. Rather, this kind of courage and boldness shown by Smt. Hindlata to take recourse of law is praiseworthy and commendable. The judgment of acquittal dated 23.2.1989, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge III, Dehradun is the outcome of perception of a particular Judge nay inability of the prosecution witnesses to prove the offence, which could not be proved because the real victims Km. Meeankshi and Km. Anamika were only 7 and 6 years old at the time of incident. So, learned Sessions Judge was not inclined to believe their statements. The judgment of acquittal of a criminal does not always mean that he is innocent, but such a judgment is 5 rendered and depends upon innumerable factors like inability of witnesses to face the cross-examination at the hands of senior Counsel in awful surroundings of a court room, particularly when the witnesses are women or minor children as they are not accustomed to this kind of atmosphere, which they constraintly face while standing in the witness box. In such circumstances, their statements are engulfed which are taken into consideration very scrupulously by the court while assessing the evidence, and this all give benefit of doubt and result into acquittal of the accused. In that case, launched by Smt. Hindlata Rawat, the examination of vaginal smears of two minor daughters/victims revealed the presence of spermatozoa, but the same was belied by the trial court because the medical examination was done after a considerable time of the incident and as per the medical science, probability of presence of live or dead spermatozoa in the vagina is not possible after 72 hours of the sexual intercourse. 9. In above circumstances, the complaint filed by Vijendra Singh Rawat and entertained by the court concerned with the result that Smt. Hindlata Rawat was tried for the offence of Section 499/500 IPC, was quite unjustified and it amounts to the abuse of the process of law. Learned Magistrate in succession was quite justified in acquitting Smt. Hindlata Rawat. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and order. The appeal is totally meritless and deserves to be dismissed with special cost on the appellant Vijendra Singh Rawat. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment and order dated 1.10.1999, passed by Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun in Criminal Complaint Case No. 6 1783/1996, Vijendra Singh Rawat v. Smt. Hindlata Rawat, is hereby affirmed. A special cost of rupees five thousand is imposed on the complainant/appellant Vijendra Singh Rawat for abusing the process of court. The cost, so imposed, shall be paid to Smt. Hindlata Rawat after the recovery of the same. 11. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the lower court for compliance. Lower court record be sent back. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 20.12.2011 Prabodh