Sadasiva Aiyar, J.
1. The accused belong to the 'Moothan' caste, which is one of the divisions of the Sudra caste. There is nothing to show that their caste status is less high than that of Nairs and on the other hand while most Nairs are content to call themselves Sudras, Moothana have been trying to claim the status of Vaisyas as following the profession of trade; their women are called Chettichiyars and some of them have adopted the Vaisya Surname 'Gupta'.
2. The prosecution theory that while a Nair's entry into the Nallambalam of the temple does not pollute the temple or the idols in it, the entry of a Moothan does so is prima facie improbable and I may say it almost amounts to an absurdity.
3. The contention that the particular custom in this temple is to make such entry an act of pollution, is sought to be proved by the evidence of Brahmin and Nair witnesses who gave no reason for their extraordinary opinion, which is clearly of very little worth.
4. I would set aside the conviction and sentences and order the fines to be reunded.
5. I agree. I accept the contention that the word defile' cannot be confined to the idea of making, dirty but must also be extended to ceremonial pollution, but it is certainly necessary to prove pollution. The caste of the accused is not; one of the polluting castes, vide Malabar Gazetteer, page 117. Neither is the act alleged, one confined by right to Brahmins as was the case in Sivakoti Swami 1 Weir 253 where a goldsmith touched the idol. It is simply presence in that part of a temple which is open to non-Brahmins but is alleged not to be open to the caste of the accused. In my opinion this is not defiling' within the meaning of Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code. .