Skip to content


Raja Ram Singh Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1918All125; 45Ind.Cas.1005
AppellantRaja Ram Singh
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredEmpress v. Behari A.W.N.
Excerpt:
penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 500 - defamation--using obscene and insulting language in respect of complainant--offence. - - assuming in the applicant's favour that he did not intend that his hearers should take literally the disgusting imputation conveyed by his words, i do not see that he is in any better position than he would have been if he said:.....and has written a carefully considered judgment. i accept his finding as to the words used by raja ram singh and the circumstances under which they were spoken. the point taken on behalf of the applicant is that the words used were obviously not intended to be understood literally and amounted to no more than an open expression of the fact that the accused was very angry with the complainant. there is some authority for the proposition that words prima facie defamatory used in a street quarrel should be regarded as mere vulgar abuse and that their utterance under such circumstances dees not necessarily suggest an intention to harm the reputation of the person to whom they are applied. i am content to refer to the case of empress v. behari a.w.n. (1833) 33 : 5 ind. dec. (n.s.) 274. i.....
Judgment:

Piggott, J.

1. This is an application in revision by one Raja Ram Singh, who has been convicted on a charge under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50, the case against him being that he used language of an obscene and insulting nature in speaking of a respectable Mukhtar of the name of Muhammad Ali Khan. I do not propose to go into the unedifying details of the quarrel between these two gentlemen. The trying Magistrate has gone into the evidence very thoroughly and has written a carefully considered judgment. I accept his finding as to the words used by Raja Ram Singh and the circumstances under which they were spoken. The point taken on behalf of the applicant is that the words used were obviously not intended to be understood literally and amounted to no more than an open expression of the fact that the accused was very angry with the complainant. There is some authority for the proposition that words prima facie defamatory used in a street quarrel should be regarded as mere vulgar abuse and that their utterance under such circumstances dees not necessarily suggest an intention to harm the reputation of the person to whom they are applied. I am content to refer to the case of Empress v. Behari A.W.N. (1833) 33 : 5 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 274. I think the present case distinguishable; the words in respect of which Raja Ram Singh has been convicted were not used in the course of a quarrel; they were not addressed to Muhammad Ali Khan at all, but were spoken of him after the altercation between the parties was over. Assuming in the applicant's favour that he did not intend that his hearers should take literally the disgusting imputation conveyed by his words, I do not see that he is in any better position than he would have been if he said: 'I wish to convey to you in the most emphatic language at my command that I consider Muhammad Ali Khan a worthless and despicable blackguard.' Surely the Sub Inspector would not wish me to hold that his own credit and reputation amongst his acquaintances stands so low that he has himself no reason to believe 'that such an expression of opinion on his part would harm the reputation of the person of whom it was made.

2. I hold that Raja Earn Singh was rightly convicted on the facts found and I dismiss his application.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //